Talk:Siddha Yoga/Archive 2

The Opening
I have read entries on the discussion page regarding the opening line of this article. I would assess the discussion as more of an unresolved argument. Personally, I disagree strongly with the line, "Siddha Yoga is a branch of the Hindu philosophical school of Kaśmir Śaivism". Please read the autobiography of Swami Muktananda. You will find that Siddha Yoga, is based on the primary concept of yoga or union with a Siddha. In this way, the concept is analagous to the concept of Guru Yoga through worship. Siddha Yoga gives rise to Raja Yoga. In this way we have the specific process of Yoga leading to the royal goal. The concepts of Kashmir Shaivism were introduced in Muktananda's Siddha Yoga as a philosophical and scholarly appendage. It is but a reflection of what Siddha Yoga is. Saying Siddha Yoga is a "branch" of Kashmir Shaivism is like saying any liberal minded enclave, no matter how tiny or obscure, is a "branch" of the USA Democratic Party. This is poor scholarship. Siddha Yoga was based on Bhagawan Nityananda whom Muktananda considered a Siddha. His devotion and worship (Guru Yoga) of Nityananda gave rise to Muktananda's Raja Yoga and attainment. Bhagawan Nityananda had no connection to Kashmir Shaivism and there is no evidence he ever spoke of it. Muktananda introduced the concepts as an ancillary study in his later work. This disqualifies it as being a "branch". In my opinion, the first line needs to be changed. I am willing to discuss here or edit it myself if no one delivers a qualified argument. If the current Guru of the sect has forwarded the currently stated conception of Siddha Yoga, kindly make me more aware of it by citation and why this need be taken seriously since the founder of this sect saw it otherwise per his writings. -Vritti 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply from TheRingess
Thanks Vritti for the input. I don't think any of the involved editors feel that this issue is resolved. Personally, I was frustrated that we didn't reach consensus. All interested editors presented well thought out arguments, but we did not reach any agreements nor did anyone suggest any possible resolutions. I can only speak personally, but I have not yet thought of a proposal that will satisfy everyone and I have simply assumed that other editors were either taking a short break and/or as I am, trying to think of a proposal that will move us forward.

The following quote is taken directly from the essential teachings page and refers to the aphorism "Honor Your Self..." "It also encapsulates a main teaching from the ancient philosophies of Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism" The url for this statement is Siddha Yoga Esential Teachings This url also serves as a reference for the tenets section of the article.

The following quote is from the Scriptural Tradition page of the SY website "The Siddha Yoga tradition draws many of its teachings from the Indian yogic texts of Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism, the Bhagavad Gita and the poet-saints" The url for that page is The Scriptural Tradition. This url also serves as a reference for the Scriptures section of the article.

I would be willing to see if Meditation Revolution supports the above quotes and the intro, but I don't have a copy.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any third party scholars that might either refute or support the intro. You seem to be more familiar with them. If you give me some names and references, I will read them in order to understand that viewpoint.

The Kashmir Shaivism article also lists both Muktananda and Nityananda as modern teachers in Kashmir Shaivism. If we dispute the statement here, we need to dispute it there also.

Please avoid labelling other people's scholarship as poor, this type of labelling does not help to build consensus.

I also disagree with your analogy. Think of the example of a new religion that claims its roots are in Christianity (i.e. the bible is their primary scripture, the teachings of the Christ figure prominently in their canon, etc.). If they are notable enough to warrant an article about them on Wikipedia, shouldn't we include their own view of themselves. If there are any religious scholars, who doubt their connection to Christianity, and they've published their arguments, wouldn't we include that as an alternative viewpoint?

I think the same thing applies here. The Siddha Yoga literature makes references to KS and AV. Shouldn't we include that here? The neutrality guidelines specify that we should include every significant, attributable viewpoint. I think that Siddha Yoga's view of itself counts as a major viewpoint. I also think that it should be included as close to the introduction as possible.

I have always been at least a little reticent about the classification of SY as "a spiritual organization teaching traditional Indian practices". For several reasons.


 * 1)  The phrase spiritual organization, to me, is too vague and non-descriptive.  Just about every religion in the world falls into the category of "spiritual organization".
 * 2)  The practices of SY, are not just Indian practices.  Meditation, chanting, and selfless service are found in a number of other traditions that did not originate in India.  Since just about every religion as a significant number of adherents in India, it's hard for a casual reader to understand what is Indian and what isn't.  Most are going to associate the word Indian with Hinduism.  The use of the word Hindu started this argument in the first place.

The short answer to your question about why it should be taken seriously, is that the SY literature supports it and their own view of themselves counts as a significant enough viewpoint to meet Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.

Personally, I don't care whether or not we call it a branch, but I think we need to mention it's relation to KS in the intro somehow. Unfortunately, I have no suggestion short of simply borrowing the language used on the SY website, which I'm reluctant to do.

If we can find religious scholars, who have studied SY and compared it to other religions then their viewpoints should be included also to satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.

We could also expand the history section, to include more about BN and what his major aphorism/sayings/philosophies were. We should be able to use the Nitya Sutras, BN of Ganespuri, and Nityananda: The Divine Presence (which I just purchased and am awaiting). I have copies of the first two and a copy of POC. I would be willing to help find references in those books.

My viewpoint, is that we really need to expand the whole article so that by the time a reader, unfamiliar with SY, is finished with the article, they will have a decent understanding of not only elements SY shares in common with Hinduism and KS, but what it shares in common with all other religions as well as how it differs from them.

I'm going to stick a disputed template on the article to make it clear that there is a discussion regarding the intro going on.

Sorry about the length. Once again, my statements only reflect my own take on the current discussion.

TheRingess (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question about lineage issues
Forgive me if my questions are simplistic, but I know very little about Siddha Yoga specifically. I have read the questions raised on the talk page regarding referring to it as a "branch" of the particular type of Shaivism practice in Kashmir region. Simply to help clarify my own ignorance, is it correct that within the Siddha Yoga organization itself, the movement characterizes itself as type of new religious movement, that is, a religious organization which has been founded relatively recently? Or does the organization see itself as having a specific teaching lineage related to a specific personage who is considered the founder? I ask the question this way because the English word "branch" is sometimes used to refer to the concept of shakha (Sanskrit: ) which is sometimes used as a technical term in Hinduism. Buddhipriya 06:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the organization refers to itself as a new religious movement, but i might be wrong. I have certainly found no reference to the term on either the website or the literature I have.  The organization considers Bhagawan Nityananda to be the first guru in the lineage in this century.  As far as I know, BN started no formal organization, it was Muktananda that officially founded SYDA (as far as I know).  We have included an observation from a 3rd party that it is a new religious movement.  Personally, I think the article needs to be expanded so that a casual reader can understand how it might be a new religious movement and how it might/might not be related to Hinduism and KS.  I think one good proposal might be to list it as a new religious movement in the first sentence, then expand briefly on its relation to Hinduism, KS and AV in the intro.  It's only a proposal though.TheRingess (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the background. Since I am not previously familiar with this group perhaps my questions are too basic.  When you mention Nityananda as the "first guru in the lineage in this century", is there a specific personage whom Nityananda cites as his teacher?  That is, what exactly is the succession of teachers (parampara) which the school cites?  Is Nityananda the farthest back which the school mentions (with dating)? This may be helpful in determine if "branch" is the best term for it, or perhaps something else.  It is quite possible that Nityananda does not explicitly claim that he was transmitting a particular teaching lineage, for example.  Such was the case with Ramakrishna, who certainly was influenced by various regional teachings, yet was sufficiently distinct as a historical figure so that he represents a new  development that can be distinguished from prior lineages.  So there is no cause for concern if Nityananda is similarly distinct, but it is helpful to try to understand how to talk about him.  Buddhipriya 06:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Nityananda is considered to have been born a siddha. The Nitya Sutras, talk about the man who raised him, and he is sometimes discussed as Nityananda's guru (I'd have to look up some references), but the general SY literature does not reference the man who raised him.  Hope that helps (hope I'm accurate).TheRingess (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What you say is consistent with what the article says now in describing Nityananda as "The first guru of this Hindu lineage". Based on this I would agree with a previous comment made by someone else that the word "branch" is not the best choice of words for the lead, because it may imply some formal connection that the group itself does not claim.  If the group itself refers to itself as a "branch" that would be noteworthy as a claim, but I can see where others might feel it was overstating the strength of the lineage.  There is no shame in developing a new point of view, so if that is what has happened here there would be no need to claim a mantle of prior authority.  Buddhipriya 06:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. I don't think they use the word branch.  I'm still trying to think of a rewrite that 1) accurately describes SY 2) inludes more about it's core philosophies and tenets.  I'm tempted to call it a "new religious movement".  I've always had trouble with basically including the history of the movement before any discussion about it's basic principles.TheRingess (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Kashmir shaivism etc
I can't understand how this controversy keeps going. I think some people are being too stubborn about it. I can cite a source (Kindle My Heart) that says that KS and Vedanta are the philosophical basis of SY. This is NOT the same as saying that SY is just a branch of KS. You could say that Christianity is based on the Old and New Testaments, one of which is Jewish, but that doesn't mean that Christianity is just a branch of Judaism.

If these people can produce a source that states unequivocally that SY is just a branch of KS, they should do so. Otherwise, stop being so stubborn about it. The same goes for saying that SY is Hinduism.

Sardaka 10:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, it should be possible to have a compromise solution that says there is some disagreement on these questions: SY claims not to be Hinduism but there is some disagreement among the editors. Same goes for KS. If we can't come to any agreement, it might be more honest to say in the article that there is disagreement on these questions.

Sardaka 10:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is based on Hindu philosophy but prefers not to call itself Hindu? It is important not to mislead the reader. The traditions are rooted in Hinduism and must be reported as such. Perhaps SY's desire to publicly distance itself from Hinduism, if this is true and can be cited, should be recorded. Lumos3 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Name and overall naming convention
I wish to also open a discussion relative to the naming convention of this article and Wikipedia. We currently have articles here on karma yoga, jnana yoga, raja yoga, etc. These are ancient forms of yoga established and recognised looong ago in India. Siddha Yoga is no different. It is a form of yoga and an integral practice in many Siddha Guru Sampradayas. This is all quite verifiable. In this article, we have a "spiritual organisation", which has adopted, and Trademarked an Indian term as its title. What we are describing in this article is the development of the SYDA, using the term Siddha Yoga as a title for its movement. We do not seem to be describing one form of the many ancient forms of yoga. For encyclopedic reasons, I think that the term Siddha Yoga requires further disambiguation. We need a neutral article for Siddha Yoga as an Indian term and form of yoga and a seperate page for this spiritual organisation. As a name of this article, I believe and propose that Siddha Yoga(R) would be correct as it reflects the naming convention as presented on the organisations website. -Vritti 18:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

TheRingess
Seems somewhat unnecessary to me or at best a bridge that interested editors can cross when they get to it. There is already a disambiguation page for the term see Siddha Yoga (disambiguation). Currently it lists only 2 articles. I'm assuming there are currently no other articles that discuss SY in other contexts. So either we move this page to "Siddha Yoga(R)" (I'm not sure if there is a policy regarding the trademark symbol in the title, but someone could look it up to make sure we aren't violating any naming guidelines) or we move it to "SYDA" or any other alternative title someone might suggest. Alternatively, we wait for fellow editors to create the types of articles you mention and then they can disambiguate in a manner they find appropriate. Personally, I'm leaning toward the latter, but that's just my personal preference. Thanks for bringing up the point.TheRingess (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you comments. My initial proposal may have been less than clear. That is, I am interested in a Siddha Yoga article relating to the Indian term and usage. This would cause a name change for this current article here. I would hope a few editors might give an opinion on what the name might be. I don't think there is a problem with Siddha Yoga(R), but will ask an administrator before making any changes. -Vritti 20:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * good point. I would say simply be bold, create your article and see how it works itself out.  Either this article will need to be renamed (a fairly easy process) or your article will have a qualifying adjective to distinguish it.  Both articles will end up on the disambiguation page anyway.  My only other thought is not to worry too much about it until the other article is written.  Thanks for the effort.TheRingess (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if my questions are too basic, but I have not previously encounted the term "siddha yoga" in Hindu sources. Is there a particular reference that I can examine for the prior use of that term before it was popularized by this particular organization? I have been unable to find any references to it in Hindu sources based on a quick search of a few standard reference works, except in reference to the new religious movement founded by the individuals mentioned in the article.  For example, there is no mention of siddha yoga in the index to Maurice Winternitz' History of Indian Literature, a standard reference work that documents a wide range of sources.  It does not seem to be mentioned among the list of Kasmir Shaiva sects enumerated by Tattwananda in his detailed compilation of such sects in Vaisnava Sects, Saiva Sects, Mother Worship.  It does not appear in the glossary provided by the Western academic Stella Kramrisch in her survey of Saiva materials, The Presence of Śiva, which otherwise covers Kasmir Shaivism to some degree, including technical terms in that philosophical system.  The only mentions of "siddha yoga" that I can find in Gavin Flood's survey of "The Śaiva Traditions" in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism are on p. 201, where he is speaking about the Siddha (Tamil: Cittar) tradition in Tamilnadu (unrelated to Kashmir philosophy) and on p. 451 where the book Meditation Revolution is mentioned as a book produced by a group of Western individuals and that the book "is indeed the first work in what must be a longer and richer tradition of religious reasoning about Siddha Yoga", clearly indicating that there are no prior studies of the subject.  Siddha yoga is not mentioned in the index to Axel Michaels Hinduism: Past and Present. It is not in the index of Heinrich Zimmer's Philosophies of India; nor in the index to An Introduction to Indian Philosophy by Chatterjee and Datta; nor in the index to Radhakrishnan and Moore's A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, all three being standard reference works on philosophical systems.  The term does not appear in the glossary to Bhattacharyya's History of the Tantric Religion, which is a comprehensive work including a section on Kasmir Shaiva philosophical movements, which were considered heterodox movements.  I conclude from these examples that the term "siddha yoga" is not widely used in Hindu materials, and may be a neologism.  However I have little knowledge of this organization and make no claim to having done a thorough search. Buddhipriya 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A small comment here on sources. I too have never seen reference to Siddha Yoga in any writings related to Kashmir Shaivism, but if it were there it would most likely be found in the Kula school of KS. I believe that early writings of Muktananda contain references to works citing Siddha Yoga, though I do not have proper references handy to relate. The Kakachandishvara Kalpa Tantra references a 13th century work Siddhayoga attributed to Vrnda. I don't have any of these sources in front of me. This is why I didn't rush to create a stub and rename this article. I have raised the issue in hopes that someone may have the sources at hand. I may or not find time in the near future to spend the required day or two at the reference library. Nice to see this discussion here. -Vritti 23:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless a very hard reference can be found, I would avoid claims of any scriptural authority for some practice called "siddha yoga". The word "siddha" is used often in Hindu texts, but it does not mean that there was some specific system of yoga organized and called "siddha yoga".  Even when the term siddhayoga can be found in grammatical variants it may not be proof of any connection to anything which is now taught by the new religious movement called Siddha Yoga.  For example, in Bengal there is a regional goddess by the name of Siddhayogeśvarī who is a form of Cāmuṇḍā, but that has nothing at all to do with the organization under discussion. (see: Bhattacharyya, History of the Tantric Religion, pp. 354-355)  If a generic term comes up somewhere, it must be evaluated in context. As far as I can tell, "siddha yoga" is a neologism, but that is based on only a cursory reference check. Buddhipriya 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't find your questions to be too basic. I am enjoying the perspective of someone familiar with Hinduism and KS yet unfamiliar with SY.  It now seems to me, that the word "branch" is not the best word to use.  I have edited the intro to classify SY as a new religious movement.  I have included some of the material previously found in the tenets section (to give the reader more specific information about this movements beliefs).  I have also included my own phrasing "primary philosophical bases" rather than simply mimicking what the SY literature which describes KS as "One of the cornerstones of the Siddha Yoga tradition".SY web site -- The texts of Kashmir Shaivism  I'm not sure my own phrasing is accurate, but am confident someone will come up with a better phrasing.  In my opinion, your comments and questions have moved the discussion along in fruitful productive directions.TheRingess (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link (SY web site -- The texts of Kashmir Shaivism) which establishes that the new religious movement Siddha Yoga cites a number of standard Hindu texts generally associated with Kashmir Shaivism as important and respected works. The web page says that "One of the cornerstones of the Siddha Yoga tradition, Kashmir Shaivism is a branch of the Shaivite philosophical tradition that explains how ..." -- that is, it refers to Kashmir Shaivism as a branch of the Shaivite philosophical tradtion (which is undisputed).  It does not seem to refer to Siddha Yoga as a "branch" of Kashmir Shaivism.  On that basis I would avoid use of the word branch regarding the connection between Siddha Yoga and Kashmir Shaivism.  Valuing a religious text is a different matter from claiming to have special received authority regarding a particular teaching lineage.  To document lineage one would normally look first to sampradaya parampara claims, and none such claims appear to be made here, nor need there be any such claims, as the history of Hinduism has seen constant ferment in the development of new ideas and the almost continuous birth of new religious movements for the past three thousand or so years. Buddhipriya 22:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Siddha Yoga as a name
Meditation Revolution on page 67 says that Muktananda first used the term Siddha Yoga in 1966 in a book called "Light on the Path", to describe the path of the guru's grace.

While I'm here, might as well point out that I have expanded the article about Nityananda. Feedback is invited.

Sardaka 11:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hindu lineage
Of the Hindu lineage, I removed the word Hindu, leaving lineage. While past and present Guru figures of Siddha Yoga&reg; are perhaps qualified Hindus, the organization grants initiation to anyone registering, exchanging the money and showing up at the appointed time and place. While these people are being initiated into Siddha Yoga, I don't think the intention is to imply that these people are also becoming Hindus by doing so. Thus, it is in my opinion, rather controversial to suggest that it is a Hindu lineage, though certainly a lineage. I don't think the word is necessary or even the way the SYDA Foundation looks at it. -Vritti 06:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, but some people insisted on using the word Hindu, even though SY say that it is not Hinduism.

If there is anymore controversy on this issue, I suggest putting the following formula in the article:

"There is some disagreement among editors about whether SY is Hindu, but the organisation itself states that it is not Hindu."

As for Kashmir Shaivism, Meditation Revolution states clearly on page 96 that Muktananda was interested in KS because it expressed the kind of experience that he had. This is a long way from saying that SY is a branch of KS.

Sardaka 09:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The spiritual tradition is Hindu, we should not try to hide this. Lumos3 00:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is trying to hide anything. If you say I'm French because I was born in France and I say I'm American because I've migrated to America and am now a citizen, I'm not trying to hide anything, but you're trying to put a label on me that I don't accept. Spiritual experience does not belong to any one religion. If someone born a Hindu has experiences of a universally divine nature and forms an organization dedicated to helping others to have the same experience, no matter who they are or where they live or what religion they belong to, then that organization can hardly be said to be Hindu. I practice Siddha Yoga and I am most definitely not Hindu. I agree that the best that can be done is to use Sardaka's suggestion above. MahaDave 19:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence as it reads now is: Siddha Yoga is a new religious movement that claims to be based on Hindu spiritual traditions. We are not clasifying SY as a hindu tradition, we are classifying the traditions of KS and AV as hindu in origin.  It seems to me, technically accurate to classify KS and AV as Hindu and is supported by the articles about them.  We are not classifying SY as Hindu anymore.20:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

New findings, problems and proposal
I've been picking over this article in the last week or so. I think it is in a better general condition, but there are a couple points which I have uncovered that I would like to make public here. I am grateful to other editors who have recently allowed me to have "my way" with the article without reverting or even tangential argument on this talk page. I have been editing in good faith and I appreciate the slack given and have tried to show correct form and proper citations in my edits. As I mentioned in an earlier comment here, I continue to have an issue with this article in that the overwhelming weight of the article is being given to the use of Siddha Yoga as a proper noun and service mark of the SYDA Foundation. Certainly, on grounds of notability, Siddha Yoga® should have the greatest weight in our treatment of the subject. I have however began to include a brief paragraph that Siddha Yoga® is not the only Siddha Yoga lineage and is in fact pre-dated by others. It was interesting to me to uncover the specific references in Meditation Revolution. Two works which Swami Muktananda found valuable during his sadhana were the Mahayoga Vijnana and Yoga Vani. These two works were helpful to Muktananda to explain the processes that were unfolding in him after shaktipat transmission from Nityananda. It appears that Nityananda himself offered no guidance on these processes. The two books in question were written by Gurus of the Tirth lineage, a pre-existing and ongoing Siddha lineage. I have given treatment and written an article on one Guru of this line, but more is needed.

Secondly, there is no reliable secondary source that Nityananda passed on the Siddha lineage to Muktananda, as he Nityananda himself was without sampradaya and certainly without parampara in any known lineage. He never spoke of Siddha Yoga and never claimed to be a Guru or Swami of any tradition. Muktananda assertions are claims made in his autobiography and repeated elsewhere. These claims have been opposed by many close to Nityananda, etc. There are references if needed. I think the solution in this article is to merely relate the story that shaktipat was given to Muktananda by Nityananda. This is not an improbable assertion and something a Yogi can do independent of sampradaya and parampara. In all reality, Muktananda is the first Guru of Siddha Yoga®, though this needn't be brought into the article either. A lineage now exists, though it is not as exclusive as previously asserted. It bears the honor of being most notable.

Kindly bear with me as I take Siddha Yoga from an ancient and rather obscure compound Sanskrit term to the proper noun and service mark which now dominates its usage. Thanks for your patience. -Vritti 07:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have continued to try to find examples of the use of the term "siddha yoga" other than by this new religious movement and so far have found nothing that shows any prior tradition. I provided a list of negative results in a prior post.  In addition to those sources previously mentioned, I since have checked the indexes for Mark Dyczkowski's The Doctrine of Vibration (a review of Kashmir Shaivism), Wendy Doniger's Purana Perennis (a collection of Puranic studies), Thomas McEvilley's The Shape of Ancient Thought (A study of exchange of ideas between India and Greece, with emphasis on ancient thought), and Max Muller's Six Systems of Indian Philosophy (a classic on philosophical systems) and did not find any mention of "Siddha Yoga".  I continue to feel that the phrase is a neologism invented by the originators of this new religious movement, and that any attempt to prove prior existence for it as a religious practice is unlikely to be broadly sourced, although I would "never say never" with regard to just about any claim related to Hinduism.  So in reading the article any general statements about "siddha yoga" having prior use in Hinduism need to be sourced.


 * To keep the results together, here is a restatement of prior negative findings. There is no mention of siddha yoga in the index to Maurice Winternitz' History of Indian Literature, a standard reference work that documents a wide range of sources. It does not seem to be mentioned among the list of Kasmir Shaiva sects enumerated by Tattwananda in his detailed compilation of such sects in Vaisnava Sects, Saiva Sects, Mother Worship. It does not appear in the glossary provided by the Western academic Stella Kramrisch in her survey of Saiva materials, The Presence of Śiva, which otherwise covers Kasmir Shaivism to some degree, including technical terms in that philosophical system. The only mentions of "siddha yoga" that I can find in Gavin Flood's survey of "The Śaiva Traditions" in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism are on p. 201, where he is speaking about the Siddha (Tamil: Cittar) tradition in Tamilnadu (unrelated to Kashmir philosophy) and on p. 451 where the book Meditation Revolution is mentioned as a book produced by a group of Western individuals and that the book "is indeed the first work in what must be a longer and richer tradition of religious reasoning about Siddha Yoga", clearly indicating that there are no prior studies of the subject. Siddha yoga is not mentioned in the index to Axel Michaels Hinduism: Past and Present. It is not in the index of Heinrich Zimmer's Philosophies of India; nor in the index to An Introduction to Indian Philosophy by Chatterjee and Datta; nor in the index to Radhakrishnan and Moore's A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy, all three being standard reference works on philosophical systems. The term does not appear in the glossary to Bhattacharyya's History of the Tantric Religion, which is a comprehensive work including a section on Kasmir Shaiva philosophical movements, which were considered heterodox movements. I conclude from these examples that the term "siddha yoga" is not widely used in Hindu materials, and may be a neologism. Buddhipriya 07:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Buddhipriya, I have already sourced the term in the article. I appreciate that you didn't find them where you have looked and this is clear. What is the issue with the sources I have raised? -Vritti 08:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Tirumantiram
The article has the sentence: "One early reference to Siddha Yoga can be found in the Third Tantra of the Tirumantiram of Tirumular." but does not give the verse number. The only reference is to a web page with an English translation. What is the verse in Sanskrit in the original language? Also, is this the only reference so far found, or one among other references? Since the Sanskrit source is not provided, the statement cannot be verified at this point. The web page verse may be: 581: Breath Control for Maha Siddha Yoga If below the nose-tip You look twelve-finger length, And then concentrate and meditate (on navel centre), The mighty Siddha yoga shall yours be And imperishable shall your body be.

One problem with using that text to source this article is that Tirumūlār (see: Thirumoolar) was a Tamil poet, classified as 7th or 8th century AD by Maurice Winternitz, p. 588 (note 1). The issue is that the Tamil poet saints of South India, of which he was one, had nothing to do with the Kasmir Shaivism tradition of North India. The Tamils represented a different bhakti tradition entirely. As I understand the claims made by Siddha Yoga, they make no mention of Tamil traditions. So even if the source text is being translated correctly (it is likely a Tamil text, not Sanskrit), the text has no relevance to this group except in a tangential way. The larger problem is that if there were a meaningful tradition of siddha yoga, someone would have noticed it and written about it in a WP:RS.

The articles says regarding texts: "The Siddha Yoga literature states that it draws many of its teachings from the texts of Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism and the poets of India. From Vedanta it mentions the Upanishads, the Vedas, the Viveka Chudamani and the Yoga Vasishtha. From Kashmir Shaivism it mentions the Shiva sutras, the Prataybhijnahridayam, the Spanda Karikas, the Vijnana Bhairava and the Kularnava Tantra. In addition the literature states that many of the teachings of Siddha Yoga are contained in the Bhagavad Gita, the Jnaneshwari, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the Bhakti Sutras, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana and the Guru Gita." This long list, which includes a wide range of eclectic materials, does not include the Tamil bhakti poets specifically, though the phrase "poets of India" could include just about anything.

To give better dating for this Tamil poet I added the standard critical apparatus of Notes and References sections (see: Guide to layout). In that standard format, books that are cited in footnotes (Notes) are listed in the list of works cited (References) so they can be cited in short form. If this change to standard referencing format is acceptable to other editors, the other books that are already used in footnotes can be added to References. Eventually, any book that is worth reading on the subject will be in References, and the Further Reading section becomes moot. This helps get the article into stronger position from the point of view of inline citations. Buddhipriya 08:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I myself argued that Siddha Yoga had little to do with Kashmir Shaivism in my first post to this page. I agree that there is no mention mention of the Tamil poet in Siddha Yoga as defined by the SYDA Foundation. We seem to be arguing over the term Siddha Yoga. I am not defining this term as per the SYDA Foundation. I am suggesting that it has a broader background and past than the neologism, Siddha Yoga as used by the SYDA Foundation. This article is named Siddha Yoga, not Siddha Yoga (SYDA Foundation). This is my point. Kindly take a look at the Tirth lineage (above) and their contributions and be so kind as to comment. -Vritti 08:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have followed the only link you provided regarding the Tamil source, which is provided only in English so the actual text is not clear. Furthermore, the doctrines of the Tamil poet saints are well-known Shaiva bhakta beliefs, discussed in several of the texts which I have already cited as not mentioning anything about Siddha Yoga.  Can you provide a reference to a book published by a reliable academic publishing house that discusses the use of the term siddha yoga in prior traditions?  English translations of texts provided on web sites are not the type of WP:RS that I would prefer to examine.  It is entirely possible that the term siddha yoga appears somewhere in some text.  But that does not make it a tradition;  if there were a tradition, some academic source would discuss it. This appears to be an interesting case of how one can refute a WP:FRINGE claim that is so novel no one has refuted it in a WP:RS.  The approach for WP:FRINGE claims is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing.  And I appreciate your point that you are not arguing that Siddha Yoga the organization is following some ancient lineage, thank you for clarifying that point which does not seem to be in dispute. Buddhipriya 09:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * hmmm. I already have and cited it in the body of the article. Devatma Shakti (Kundalini) The Divine Power. Swami Vishnu Tirtha. Your position is becoming confusing to me. The lineage of this tradition is fairly extensive and as I previously noted, seems to be the source from which Swami Muktananda appropriated the sources for Siddha Yoga (SYDA Foundation). I continue to think that this information is relevant to the topic Siddha Yoga. You may not agree, but I would be deeply interested in knowing why or why not. The Tirth lineage predates the SYDA Foundation and their books are cited as influencial to the founder of Siddha Yoga (SYDA Foundation) Swami Muktananda. -Vritti 09:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

--- (reset indent) Forgive me if my questions are too basic. I emphasize that I am largely ignorant of new religious movements and their leaders. I stumbled into this article not due to any background in Siddha Yoga, but because of its mention of Kashmir Shaivism, which is a subject I wish to learn more about. What little contribution I may be able to make to this article is simply check if certain terms such as "siddha yoga" have broad currency in Hinduism based on their presence or absence as topics in a sampling of academic books that seem likely candidates where it would be discussed. Unfortunately, this method is a form of Argument from ignorance which is not an authoritative answer.

I have never heard of Swami Vishnu Tirtha and have not found any reference to him in any of the reference books I have checked so far. The only references for him and for the "tirth lineage" that are cited on the Wikipedia artcile are web pages such as that do not cite any reliables sources. I regret that I have not heard of this tradition before, but so far attempts to find any reference to it in some of the books at hand have failed. Looking for references to "tirth" ("tirtha") produces various false positives because it is a general term for a place of pilgrimage and a category of Jain spiritual leader, neither of which seem to pertain to this issue. I also have not yet located any published reference to a "siddha lineage" of which any of these individuals is said to be a member. The general term "siddha" does of course come up in various works, but that is not the same as mentions of the phrase "siddha yoga" which is what I am trying to nail down.

Doing a search for the phrase "Mahayoga Vijnana" at Amazon.com turned up a citation to the book on page 83 of the book Building a Noble World by Shiv R. Jhawar (ISBN 0974919705) that you can view using the Amazon "look within this book" feature. The citation appears in a quotation from Muktananda in which Muktananda in commenting on the concept of shaktipat:

"Shaktipat is a wonderful and mysterious spiritual process in which the Guru showers the energy of his own soul on the disciple. Without the grace of the Siddhas, shaktipat cannot take place. Shaktipat is a vast science. It is described in minute detail in the shivagama and shaivatantra. Books in Hindi include Mahayoga Vijnana by Yogananda Brahmachari and Yogavani by Shankar Purushottam Tirth.' (Jhawar, p. 83.)"

The other reference that turns up via Amazon is a book titled Mahayoga Vijnana by Yogendra Vigyani (1938) and that may be the item which is referred to in the quote. In this quotation from Muktananda he mentions the two books in connection with the concept of shaktipat, not "siddha yoga" and the phrase "siddha yoga" is not used in the quotation as provided at Amazon.com. Even if the phrase "siddha yoga" can be shown to appear in those two books, since both are by recent authors they do not themselves establish any ancient lineage for the phrase.

According to Verifiability Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." On that basis I suggest that other editors look very carefully at the claims for pre-existence of the specific phrase "siddha yoga" prior to its use by this new religious movement. Buddhipriya 18:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism Today as a source
The article currently uses the following source: "Palani, Sivasiva (November 1990). "The Trademark Wars". Hinduism Today." Hinduism Today is not a WP:RS for facts regarding the history of religion. The article is copyright by the Himalayan Academy, which is not known for scholarship. This group has recently been discussed on other articles as an unreliable source. Can no better source be found? Buddhipriya 08:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The source was handy, so I used it. I have given other sources. The Tirth material you have yet to comment on. The Hinduism Today source doesn't give references, this I grant you. I can ask the editors of Hinduism Today to provide more information, as could any editor. As a sidebar to this discussion, could you clue me into what or why they are so unreliable? Thanks -Vritti 09:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please cite here the "Tirth material" so I can be sure I am looking at the right reference. I am unsure which one you mean. Do you mean: "It was interesting to me to uncover the specific references in Meditation Revolution. Two works which Swami Muktananda found valuable during his sadhana were the Mahayoga Vijnana and Yoga Vani. These two works were helpful to Muktananda to explain the processes that were unfolding in him after shaktipat transmission from Nityananda. It appears that Nityananda himself offered no guidance on these processes. The two books in question were written by Gurus of the Tirth lineage, a pre-existing and ongoing Siddha lineage. I have given treatment and written an article on one Guru of this line, but more is needed." ? Buddhipriya 09:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. It is now 2:30am in my time zone, so I will write more tomorrow. In the mean time, the two works I referenced in the comments on this page, Mahayoga Vijnana and Yoga Vani were written by the the two Gurus of Swami Vishnu Tirtha. While I'm sleeping, a Google on Swami Vishnu Tirtha could turn up the same info that I found, cross referenced by Meditation Revolution, Agama Press, aka SYDA Foundation. Good night. -Vritti 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Siddha Yoga prior to the SYDA Foundation
Continuing this discussion under a new section... Some days ago I added to this article a qoute by Swami Vishnu Tirtha defining the term Siddha Yoga. ''Therefore the yoga of Kundalini, is known as Mahayoga. It is also sometimes called Siddhayoga because it can be acquired only through the favor of a perfect master (Siddha Guru) without any effort on the part of the initiated.[8] It has been said that through Shaktipat, Kundalini is soon awakened and Mahayoga or Siddhayoga is the direct outcome.[9]''. What is significant about this qoute is that it was published in the book Devatma Shakti, in English in December 1948. Neither the author or publisher were in any way connected to Bhagawan Nityananda or Swami Muktananda who had only a few months prior to this books publication, received Shaktipat transmission. This establishes a prior definition of Siddha Yoga as synonymous with Kundalini Yoga and Mahayoga. Siddha Yoga is directly connected with Shaktipat. These terms are used and practiced in Tantra and the Nath Sampradaya to name but two examples. The appropriation of Siddha Yoga as a proper noun, only occurred in 1977.

Further research reveals, that the work Mahayoga Vijnana was important to Muktananda during his sadhana as it explained the process of Shaktipat and Kundalini Yoga as he was experiencing it. The author of this book was the Shaktipat Guru of Swami Vishnu Tirtha, [Yogananda Maharaj aka Yogendrajnani]. Please see Play of Consciouness and Meditation Revolution for reference to Mahayoga Vijnana. Another work important to Muktananda was Guruvani, written by [Swami Shankar Purushottam Tirtha], this person was Swami Vishnu Tirtha's Sannyas Guru. A tree of this earlier Siddha Yoga lineage can be found [here]. Evidence that this lineage still propounds the synonymous usage of Siddha Yoga and Kundalini Yoga, et al can be found [here]. While I agree that Siddha Yoga(SYDA Foundation) is a proper noun and neologism of their specific movement, the term Siddha Yoga has prior use and a broader definition than promulgated by the SYDA Foundation. Siddha Yoga is a compound Sanskrit term, its use as a proper noun is a very recent development. This article is entitled, Siddha Yoga, so there is every reason that cited references related to this word should be in this article. -Vritti 20:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Table of contents for Guruvani, [see Discourse 1]. I will be ordering the english version soon. -Vritti 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Excerpts from Yogavani featuring [Siddhayoga]. -Vritti 22:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all rather fascinating, but what's it doing on the talk page? What you've said here deserves an article in its own right. In fact, it is an article in its own right. Why don't you start a new article where these things can be covered as fully as they deserve? You wouldn't have to add much; it's already an article, and it deserves more attention.

Sardaka 12:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The point that "Siddha Yoga is a compound Sanskrit term, its use as a proper noun is a very recent development" is the aspect of this which seems of most importance in clarifying the historical claims. Buddhipriya 18:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Sardaka, I think the real use of a talk page is to present ideas with the hope and expectation of developing consensus among the editors of any given page. Sometimes this is needed. If the ideas we intend to include in an article, fail in some aspect to meet the most important guidelines, we may have to reassess our position on why it should be included. This can be healthy debate. It becomes unhealthy only when one or more editors, go off the rails and insists on content/noncontest or POV over Wikipedia protocol. A number of articles on Wikipedia in the same general class of this article, crudely defined as.. hindu/new age/spiritual/occult are in rather dreadful condition. This situation can only be improved with high levels of verifiability and editors willing to enforce the standard. I'm gratified you find the info I brought up fascinating. What is most fascinating to me, is that the actual points are so little known. I also suspect, that if we look closely at the many sources and primary sources for a number compound sanskrit terms, we may be in for a something of a surprise, but then again, we'll see. -Vritti 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Poet saints
I think the jury is still out on who the "poet saints" are that are mentioned in the lead. I assumed they were the Nayanars, who were a Shaivite group, but another contender could be the Alvars. I do not know what Siddha Yoga says about this issue. Can anyone cite a specific example of a poet or poetical work that they consider authoritative? If so, that work can be classified. Buddhipriya 22:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. This is what the web site has to say:

"One of the ways that the great understandings of the Indian philosophy spread among people was through the songs and words of the poet-saints. In all parts of India, particularly in the west and south, these saints composed songs that revealed the secrets of the mystical path."

I don't know if we are going to find a source that is any more specific than that.

I think I will remove the wikilink until we can find a source.

What group would Lalleshwari fall into? I know that Muktananda translated the Lalleshwari. Although that statement hardly counts as a definitive source that shows that her group is the one referred to in the quote.

TheRingess (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe any particular group is meant here but whichever sacred poetry is deemed worthy. I think the Sant Mat link best describes what is meant. I have certainly heard Kabir and Tukaram quoted at Siddha Yoga events. See http://www.siddhayoga.org/teachings/scriptures/sacred_texts/sacred_texts.html Lumos3 11:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lalla is described as "the most famous Kashmiri Śaiva poet saint" in Flood (2003), p. 191. That connection makes sense as it is Kashmir material. I do not think that the link in the article is reliable, as it seems to be overspecifying some particular group which so far I cannot find a reference to.


 * A rather detailed table showing major poet saints, with associated sects and dating, appears on pp. 63-65 of John Keay's Hinduism: Past and Present. It shows an extremely wide variation in the sects, which date from 7th century to the 19th century.  Lalla is not mentioned in that table by that name. Buddhipriya 04:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Poet Saints of Maharastra
With regard to the question about which poet saints are refered to in the Siddha Yoga lineage, it is usually qualified as being the Poet Saints of Maharashtra. Some of the specific names are Lalleshwari, Jnanseshwar Maharaj, Kabir, Akka Mahadevi and Tukaram Maharaj. I didn't know there were different groups of poet saints, but these would be the western ones. MahaDave 17:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give a citation that would establish which of the many different poet saint lineages it is that is cited by Siddha Yoga? Your use of the term "usually qualified" suggests that you may have access to a specific WP:RS regarding this.  Because of the claims of connections to Kashmir Shaivism my own guess was that the Shaiva poet saints were intended, without any basis for making the assumption. Buddhipriya 18:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll look to see where I read that. However, I just checked the Siddha Yoga web site under the description of the scriptures that Siddha Yoga philosophy is based on. It says, 'One of the ways that the great understandings of the Indian philosophy spread among people was through the songs and words of the poet-saints. In all parts of India, particularly in the west and south, these saints composed songs that revealed the secrets of the mystical path.' MahaDave 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My Mistake
So I'll do See Alsos that link to things not linked in the article.

Sardaka 09:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

History section
This had been merged with the Contoversy and criticism section which strictly is a seperate subject. I have restored it. Other NRM articles treat this as a seperate section and I dont support attempts to bury criticism in other longer sections. Lumos3 06:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's a separate subject, it is part of the history and does not really need to be a separate subject. If the history section were longer I could see making it a separate section.  I remember reading somewhere that criticism sections do not have to be separate sections, if I can dig up the link I will.  Nor is there an attempt here to "bury" the criticism (I can't help but see your comment as negative, so forgive me if it wasn't meant in a negative sense).  There does not seem to be a specific project that deals with nrm's as such, so I'm not convinced that this article absolutely has to follow other articles, especially since as I mentioned above, I cannot find a specific policy that states that criticism must absolutely have its own section.   Nor does the article violate WP:NPOV by having it as part of the history.  Perhaps a neutral 3rd opinion might be appropriate here.TheRingess (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in question is clearly separate to the rest of the history section since up to this point the account is chronological but then we have a paragraph which jumps back to 1983 and begins to describe the published critics of SYD.  This is then a separate topic not a new paragraph within a history. The techniques for sophisticated editors to subtly hide negative material from readers are well set out here. I think a balanced NPOV article would clearly state opposing views in a way a casual new reader on the subject can easily see they exist ( i.e. they appear in the contents ) and access them without having to extract them from other text. Lumos3 21:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I lean in favor of Lumos3's view. The issue is one of weight. Having a Controversy and criticism section reflects that there is in fact, controversy and criticism associated with the subject. In my opinion, if the criticism is to become a part of the history it should be fleshed out so that the reader might be aware of what the critical issues are. The sex and lies aspect involving Muktananda are not clearly mentioned. These allegations alone were pivotal to many in their appraisal of whether or not Siddha Yoga was or is "on the level" as advertised and promoted by the SYDA. Further, the claims of Muktananda receiving Shaktipat from Nityananda, though plausible, are from a self-published primary source. In a truly WP:NPOV article, this assertion would be qualified as a claim. So, some problems persist with the article. Certainly, Siddha Yoga is a NRM (New Religious Movement) and is defined as such in the opening of the article. I hope other editors weigh in with their views. -Vritti 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently this has been discussed extensively here Criticism. I would agree if the History section were longer, but I think having two separate sections somehow implies that the criticism is not part of SY's history. The link provides a compelling argument that not having a separate criticism section is more neutral than having one. I agree with Vritti's comments above regarding claims and neutrality.TheRingess (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is only my POV, but I'm willing to let go of the Criticism section. I believe that a criticism section developed, as in most articles which have one, as a way of coping with the contentious points. So, I'm fine without the Criticism section but this means to me that there is a need to include an unvarnished but balanced treatment of the unverifiable claims of the SYDA and what appears to some to have been instances of blatant dishonesty. It could lead to a better article if all editors can keep it balanced and WP:NPOV. -Vritti 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
I can't see why the Criticism section shouldn't be deleted. NPOV doesn't require a section on criticisms of the subject. If you look at articles on other subjects, you won't see a criticism section. Can't see why we need one here.

Sardaka 10:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

propose merge with Siddhayoga
There appears to be two articles discussing this topic. The titles are the same, except one splits the term into two words. I suggest the two articles be merged by someone familiar with the topic. --Evb-wiki 22:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need. They are two distinct entities.  However the newer article needs to be placed on the disambiguation page.TheRingess (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These two organizations are separate. Merging them would do nothing to make things clearer.

Sardaka 10:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * Lead not written as WP:LEAD
 * The block quote in lead, looks out of place.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The first paragraph or Overview needs to establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The first sentence should give the shortest possible relevant characterization of the subject. The Sanskrit spelling of Siddha Yoga could be given as well as pronunciation. Context - State the obvious, describing the category or field in which the idea belongs such as saivism, hinduism and spirituality. Characterization what the term refers to as used in the given context the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable in the category of yoga, saivism, hinduism and spirituality. Explanation - deeper meaning and background by a summary of the most important points / sections of the article. The current lead does not say anything at all about the excellent sections to introduce any of them...Name, History, Practices, Holy days, and Scriptures. For example....If I read only the lead, I would not know about these sections, nor would I be induced to read the rest of the article for that reason. Compare and contrast - how it relates to other topics for example: mythology, Hindu philosophy, Vedanta, Saivism, other spiritualities, such as Entheogens,  Esotericism,  Fourth Way,  Meditation,  Mysticism,  New religious movements,  Otherkin,   Sufism,  Transcendentalism,  Transhumanism,  Transpersonal psychology. Criticism - include criticism if there has been significant, notable criticism.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

The aphorisms should be its own section and then summarized in the lead, as it is giving new information not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Another section could be Etymology. Section popular culture should be written in prose and not list format as trivia is discouraged. The yoga template is used which is appropriate, but why is not Siddha Yoga article a part of the template?

Add an appropriate infobox such as the one to the right of this page.SriMesh | talk  00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Intensives"
Article says: "The main practices of Siddha Yoga include meditation, chanting, seva, dakshina, satsang and intensives." I believe that I understand the meaning of "intensives", but I assume that there will be readers for whom this is not obvious. Therefore, could a definition or link for this please be provided in the article. (Not just mentioned here.) Thanks. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, please feel free to add a definition (with a link as a source).TheRingess (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your welcome. I am unable to provide a definition or cite, or I would have done so. Nevertheless, I believe that both should be included in the article. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add it to the to do list for this article.TheRingess (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Intensives are explained in the last paragraph of the section on practises.

Sardaka (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Gurumayi0001.jpg
The image Image:Gurumayi0001.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Template
I suggest a template for the SY articles, which would go at the bottom of each article and enable people to go easily from article to article.

It would look like:

Feedback?

Sardaka (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyway
There was no response after a few weeks, so I went ahead and did it.

Sardaka (talk) 10:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Intensives
What happened to the section on Intensives in the Practices section? I did a paragraph on Intensives at the end of the Practices section because it is fundamental to SY, and someone goes and deletes it. Just reminds me why I gave up working on the SY articles.

Sardaka (talk) 08:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the official Siddha Yoga (SYDA) web site, as of today 11/30/09: "Siddha Yoga practice begins with spiritual initiation, shaktipat diksha. Through the Siddha Yoga master's grace and the student's own steady effort, students realize the divinity within themselves and in the world around them." http://www.siddhayoga.org/

The meaning of "shaktipat diksha" and "grace" is that the guru has got some magical invisible energy (called "shakti"). Not only does this shakti swirl around the guru's physical body, but he/she has the amazing power to transmit it to others, or awaken it in others. Quite an extreme claim! Yet there's not a single word in the "teaching" section of this wiki on "Siddha Yoga" to hint at this aspect of the teaching... a teaching right on the Siddha Yoga org's website!

There's massive controversy over the SYDA org. Anyone who googles will immediately see http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/ and other sites discussing this controversy. The controversial teachings of the org have NOTHING to do with what's listed in the wiki "Teachings" section. They DO have something to do with the unsupported claims that the SYDA guru has magical powers of "grace" or "shakti" etc. The claims are made right on their website, and yet ignored on the wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomstu (talk • contribs) 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions
My edits will be restricted to talk pages, and I will not engage in editing directly any Siddha Yoga-related page. Instead, I would volunteer information on the talk pages, and ask for Wikipedians' help.

I note that the editors have requested more information on the following two points: 1.Rewrite lead per suggestions from peer review and GA review. 2.Create a section delineating the role of the guru in SY.

Below is a proposed edit adding three sentences to the lead paragraph. Because the Siddha Yoga path is a tradition that is both teacher and teaching oriented, it makes sense to include both the founder and the present teacher in the lead.

The current initial sentence of lead paragraph: Siddha Yoga is a spiritual path (or new religious movement)[1] based on the Hindu spiritual traditions of Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism.[2]

Proposed insertion AFTER that sentence: The Siddha Yoga path was founded by Swami Muktananda Paramahamsa (1908-1982). The present spiritual head of the Siddha Yoga path is Gurumayi Chidvilasananda. The two main ashrams are: Gurudev Siddha Peeth in Ganeshpuri, India, and Shree Muktananda Ashram in upstate New York. (We are not suggesting other changes at this time.)

The source for this information is: Brooks, Douglas; and Swami Durgananda, Paul E. Müller-Ortega, William K. Mahoney, Constantin Rhodes Bailly, and S.P. Sabharathnam (1997). Meditation Revolution: A History and Theology of the Siddha Yoga Lineage. Agama Press. p. xxiv-xxv, 26, 110, 122. Chandrabhaga B (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for the suggestions, I will try to implement them when time permits.  Just an fyi, if your desire to not edit articles directly is due to a concern about potential conflict of interest, then please consider that the Wikipedia community does not view COI in the same way that the legal community might, if your edits conform to the pillars of Wikipedia (neutrality, verifiability, civility) then regardless of who you may or may not work for, you are more than welcome (and enthusiastically encouraged) to edit any article that peaks your interest.  I have left a welcome message on your talk page that further clarifies what the community calls the "pillars" of Wikipedia.  Welcome to our community.TheRingess (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved controversial material to a "Controversy" section
I have removed non-neutral material from the "History" section and moved it to a "Controversy" section. Please see the BLP (Biography of LIving Persons) guidelines if you have any questions about this. The controversial and defamatory allegations that have been repeatedly inserted into the "History" section of this article properly belong in a separate section called "Controversy." Wikixosa (talk) 06:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. The material is merely reprinting articles that have already been published, it is neither supporting nor denying the allegations, merely stating that the articles were published and summarizing as neutrally as possible the contents of the articles.  Including that information anywhere in the article is probably not a violation of the BLP policies.  It seems to me that to separate the fact that the articles were published, from the history section, is non-neutral.  It seems to imply that the history is completely separate from any of the controversy.TheRingess (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe a controversy section is necessary as Siddha Yoga has been shrouded in controversy for a long time., I believe by leaving the controversy in history, the controversy had been brushed over in favour of the organisations 'official history'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedlam29 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Commercially motivated page
while the original article is here Siddhayoga, a dummy commercially linking to website as been added in references. Shrikanthv (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this not Siddhayoga?
What is the difference between Siddha Yoga and Siddhayoga? Why are there two articles and why isn't Siddhayoga linked in this article? Joja lozzo  18:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The simplest answer is that they are two different traditions that share similar terminology, but a quick read of both articles reveals that they are different enough that they both deserve their own articles.  I don't think either article has to necessarily link to the other.  There exists a disambiguation page for the term "Siddha Yoga".  Maybe this article could have a link in the See Also section to the other Siddhayoga article and vice versa.  I think it's not a big deal with a link or without one.TheRingess (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Siddhayoga article links to Siddha Yoga and quotes Muktananda on shared traditions. Muktananda's teacher was a Siddha guru. How is Siddha Yoga different that what Muktananda acquired from his teacher? Joja  lozzo  01:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How it might differ is probably a good candidate for a new section in the article, properly referenced from academic journals discussing the subject of course. I read both articles, and it seems like they are both describing two traditions that share much in common, so an article for each one seems appropriate.  I have no time to search through journals to see what scholars have to say, but the beauty of Wikipedia is that someone else might.  Happy editing!TheRingess (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * this article is refering to self published source and is promoting a private business Ashrama   (common in India), it even goes on to say when is the holidays for the ashram etc , it is commercially motivated as it references are only its own websites and self published sources , i went through the journals they have mentioned , most of them are self published.

A combination of the original siddhayoga and other articles making it look different and selling the ashrama website. should we do the AFD for this article ? Shrikanthv (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your notion seems to be that Siddha Yoga lacks independent sourcing and may therefore not be a notable group. You are entitled to that opinion, but removing valid internal links is the wrong approach. If you suspect a topic is non-notable, you can tag it for lack of independent sources or raise the issue at the article talk page. If you have done a thorough search on the internet and found no independent sources, you could nominate the article for AFD, however, I think you would be wasting the community's time with such a move as Siddha Yoga IIRC has had plenty of coverage in independent media. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that Siddha Yoga and Siddhayoga appear to be different lineages that happen to share a similar name and, apparently, some similar teachings, but that is not a valid reason for merging the articles, as many different religious groups have teachings in common. Gatoclass (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Having taken a closer look at the article, it appears to have some indepedent sourcing so I see no valid reason to nominate the article for deletion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Contended material
The article has always had a footnote to William Rodarmor's 1983 CoEvolution Quarterly article, which detailed Muktananda's sexual involvement with his (often underaged) followers. But the text of the Wiki article did NOT accurately reflect the content of the Rodarmor article. I've corrected this many times, but Ringess keeps changing it back to the original, dishonest text that avoids accurately reflecting what's in the Rodarmor article.


 * To begin, please read wikpedia's policy on neutrality in order to understand my argument for removing the material. I have also included a link in my edit summaries to that page.  My interpretation of wikipedia's neutrality policy, especially as it regards this article and Rodarmor's allegations, is that the article cannot present the allegations as true or as false.  Now Rodarmor's article makes a lot of allegations, so many in my opinion, that including them all would result in section that is much longer than even the article is right now.  So summarizing Rodarmor, so that it doesn't become the dominant topic in the article (which also helps the article remain neutral), is a daunting task. Several years ago, the existing summary was worked out as a compromise.  I have no problem really with expanding the summary to include a sentence or more with neutral wording.   Very obviously, Rodarmor's article presents the allegations as fact and hence he includes a very damning quote by Michael Dingha in order to support the stance that the allegations are true. As I mentioned, Wikipedia is very different, and can neither support the idea that they are true nor support the idea that they are false, simply report that the allegations exist.  Since Dingha's quote very much supports the idea they are true, it is appropriate for Rodarmor's article but not this one. Also, and just as importantly, Dingha's quote by its very nature, implies that many people at the time (and many of those people are still alive) actively conspired to hide criminal behavior.  Since many of the alleged conspirators are still alive, I contend that the quote also violates a very important policy of Wikipdia that states we don't include potentially libelous material.  For a perspective other than mine, regarding wikipedia and libelous material you can check out this link:  wikipedia's policy on material regarding living people.  Obviously, my take on Wikipedia's policies is not the only one, nor is it comprehensive.  There are also ways to invite a 3rd party to give their viewpoint, and see what they have to say.  But I forget where those links are, so I'm not including them here.TheRingess (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There should be text within the Wiki article that accurately describes the information in the Rodarmor article. The issue at hand is reports that Muktananda made sexual advances towards underaged girls who were his followers (i.e., who worshipped him as God). Do you really think that the clearest way to describe these sexual advances is "activities not in line with social norms"? I contend that no reasonable person would share your view. I will indeed bring in a 3rd party in an attempt to force you to correct this glaring error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sresnick2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Shiva statue
please discuss your edits. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me note that Sanjoydey33 started this edit-war by adding the Hinduism-sidebar and changing

into

They also broke WP:3RR. Per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN, it's up to Sanjoydey33 to provide sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I've corrected some info. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, the two of you already were discussing at User talk:Kashmiri:

Start of copied part

Hi, Please discuss why you think Siddha Yoga's teaching is not based on Hinduism. With reliable sources reliable source, it is established in current page that Siddha yoga follows Kashmiri Shaivism based on the teaching of Bhagawan Muktananda. The Siddha Yoga tradition draws its teachings from the yogic philosophy of Vedanta, Kashmir Shaivism, and the Maharashtran poet-saints. Principal texts from the Vedantic tradition include the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Viveka Chudamani of Shankaracharya, and the Yoga Vasistha. Texts from the Kashmir Shaivite tradition include the Shiva Sutras of Vasugupta, the Spanda Karikas of Vasugupta, the Prataybhijnahridayam, and the Vijnana Bhairava. Other texts referred to by Muktananda and Chidvilasananda include Jnaneshwari, the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, the Bhakti Sutras of Narada, the Mahabharata, the Ramayana, and poet saints such as Kabir and Tukaram Maharaj. Without proper sources Reliable source, don't revert this article.Sanjoydey33 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Some of Siddha Yoga teachings are based on Hinduism. A lot of SY teachings are based on Kashmir Shaivism which is a philosophy and not a religion. I see that you are trying to stick Hinduism (religion) into everything but please stop, there are valid reasons for not describing anything remotely connected to India or Indian traditions as "Hinduism". — kashmīrī  TALK  19:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that anything that originated in India are not automatically related to Hinduism. But, it's ridiculous to say that Kashmiri Shaivism is only a philosophy and not a religion and thus, not related to Hinduism. Let me educate you little bit on Hinduism (based on authentic sources, which is well-established in both western Indology and religious department and also in the Hindu tradition). Hinduism itself has six philosophical schools, two of them are Advaita and Yoga, which Siddha Yoga particularly belong to. In terms of religion, Hinduism has four well-established major denominations (sect): Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism, and Smartism. Kashmiri Shaivism is one of the oldest school of Shaivism founded by Vasugupta (author of Shiva sutras) and later preached by Abhinavagupta. In the official website of Siddha yoga, they are clearly mentioning their affiliation to Shaivism and thus automatically to Hinduism. In brief, Hinduism is both a religion and philosophy similar to Buddhism. Therefore, there are many branches (specifically, six philosophies (Sad Dharshana) and four main sects (Sampradayas) as I mentioned here) within Hinduism and Buddhism. There are thousands of references and books on these topic. So, unless you provide valid reason for saying Kashmiri Shaivism is not part of Hinduism, please stop misrepresenting lot of authentic pages and sources. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your knowledge of Indian philosophy is superficial and, I dare to say, incorrect, and I suggest you refrain from touching any article that has to do with Indian philosophy. (1) Hinduism does not "have" any "six philosophical schools" - three of the six darśanas originated well before Hinduism, and two (Nyaya and Vaisheshika) have absolutely nothing to do with religion. (2) There have been many more schools of philosophy in ancient and mediaeval India than the six darshanas. (3) Siddha Yoga is not a branch of Yoga philosophy per se but one of hundreds of mystical traditions; its "Muktananda edition" borrows some general concepts from Kashmir Shaivism (faithfully but superficially - Muktananda was not a philosopher nor did he understand Sanskrit well) but is otherwise quite faithful to the traditional South Indian tradition of the Siddhas. (4) Kashmir Shaivism is not "the oldest school of Shaivism"; Shaivist traditions precede Vasugupta by several centuries (e.g., Kapalika). It is also almost purely a school of philosophy (and mystical practice) with almost non-existent elements of organised religion. (5) Your proposition of "four denominations in Hinduism" has no basis in reliable academic sources and is so absurd that I don't feel like commenting further. — kashmīrī  TALK  23:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

End of copied part

Please continue the discussion here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Scriptures
The info on "scriptures" was first attriobuted diff, and then moved into a note diff. It's the orgaination's own claim; no independent sources are given. No need to double this info diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  20:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversy
The claims that Siddha Yoga are a cult, the sexual abuse allegations, financial issues, etc are widely reported in association and should be noted on this page in its own section rather than being under history.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.54.16 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Serious allegations about Siddha Yoga
There is serious controversial information about this organization which is missing from this page. I want to expand the verbiage to clarify what is actually alleged and controversial. Here is the current text:

In 1983 William Rodarmor printed several allegations in CoEvolution Quarterly from anonymous female devotees that Muktananda regularly had sex with them. He also charged that Muktananda had engaged in other behaviors at odds with wider societal norms.[23] Lis Harris repeated and extended Rodarmor's allegations in an article in The New Yorker (1994).[24] In 1996 former devotees started a website entitled 'Leaving Siddha Yoga' to express their grievances against Siddha Yoga.[25] An article by Sarah Caldwell in the academic journal Nova Religio (2001) argued that Muktananda was both an enlightened spiritual teacher and a practitioner of Shakta Tantrism, but also "engaged in actions that were not ethical, legal or liberatory with many disciples.".[26]

"allegations in CoEvolution Quarterly from anonymous female devotees that Muktananda regularly had sex with them."

This does not clarify that the allegations are actually that he raped underage women and others by coercion which is what the allegations sourced here actually state.

"He also charged that Muktananda had engaged in other behaviors at odds with wider societal norms."

This seems to phrase things as if it was just a bit of a misunderstanding or abnormal culture. The allegations specifically call out assault, gun smuggling, rape, fraud, and other major crimes that is not just "behavior at odds with wider societal norms."

I'd also like to add a note to this section that Gurumayi has remained in hiding from Siddha Yoga adherents for more than a decade now. I was just going back to add a source when this was locked.

https://ritualsofdisenchantment.blogspot.com/2007/10/where-in-hell-is-gurumayi.html

I have been accused of not being neutral with my edits. This article is not neutral in the information it is presenting. I have zero association with Siddha Yoga and merely noticed these serious allegations aren't present in this article and the limited information available doesn't actually clarify what the allegations are or how serious they are. There is also no clarification that Gurumayi is absent from this organization's membership and has been for almost 20 years. That is relevant unbiased information as is the allegations of serious misconduct which aren't properly represented here.

Reviewing this article's history and talk page it appears that many community users have attempted to expand this section giving the exact same reasoning. The wording here does not accurately capture what is being alleged. Some users here are breaking the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content rules and have been repeatedly called out as not allowing this information to exist on this page which the community at large considers noteworthy and not represented.

I would like to change this text to the following. This does not remove any language that these are allegations but clarifies the serious nature of what is alleged. Everything is supported by the sourced article. Gurumayi's absence can also be sourced and is extremely relevant. The head of this entire organization is missing in action.

I've also slightly modified this from my previous proposal. The first thing specified should not be that he had sex with some female devotees which sounds like a trivial matter. It should be all the serious crimes being alleged. The breaking of celibacy vows is a smaller footnote in the allegations that shouldn't be the leading sentence.

In 1983 William Rodarmor printed several allegations in CoEvolution Quarterly from former devotees that Muktananda had engaged in many illegal behaviors like rape by coercion, sexual relations with underage women, assaulting others, gun smuggling, death threats, and other dubious activities. Anonymous female devotees alleged that Muktananda raped them. This was at odds with his teachings and claim of celibacy. Lis Harris repeated and extended Rodarmor's allegations in an article in The New Yorker (1994).

Gurymayi Chidvilasananda who fully took over as leader after Muktanada's death and Nityananda's inauspicious departure hasn't been seen by Siddha Yoga adherents for more than a decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.54.67 (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is too lengthy. You just need to establish the sources say what you claim they are saying. Again, please quote directly. El_C 18:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok I'll start with Gurumayi's absence.

https://ritualsofdisenchantment.blogspot.com/2007/10/where-in-hell-is-gurumayi.html

From 2007 post:

"Gurumayi hasn't been seen in public for—how long has it been? Three years, almost four? It's hard to know precisely because news of her appearances has long been carefully controlled and sometimes concealed by those closest to her. I do know the last time I saw her; it was January 1, 2004 when I did seva helping to broadcast the last New Year's message that she gave in person: "Experience the Power Within. Kundalini Shakti." Soon afterwards she began to slowly fade away; first closing her ashram in upstate New York to outside visitors, then abruptly stopping public initiations. The following year she failed to appear to give the New Year's address, and instead issued a cryptic command that Siddha yogis should repeat the study of the previous year's message."

Comment on article from 2018:

I too, periodically google to find news of Gurumayi. I had the privilege of living at the South Fallsburg ashram for a few months after graduating from Chiropractic school. During that time, I did seva in the Finance Department, Bade Baba's temple and the amrit. It was both ecstatic and a challenge, yet I loved every minute. I still savor the quiet times and the people I met there, especially during the winter of 1998. Gurumayi, I love you. Wherever you are. Thank you for your sweet service and for opening this seeker's heart. October 6, 2018 at 8:59 AM

Now for the allegations section of serious crimes.

http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/secret.htm

Rape:

Another of Muktananda's victims was a woman I'll call "Jennifer." She says Muktananda raped her at the main Indian ashram at Ganeshpuri in the spring of 1978. He ordered Jennifer to come to his bedroom late one night, and told her to take her clothes off. "I was in shock," she said, "but over the years, I had learned you never say no to anything that he asked you to do...."

Chandra said she had rationalized the guru's having sex in the past, but was dismayed to learn it had happened to her young friend Mary. Aware of Muktananda's power over people who were devoted to him, she saw it as a form of rape.

Gun smuggling:

Though the ashrams were meditation centers, a surprising number of people in them had guns. Chandra saw Noni's gun, Muktananda's successor Subash's gun, and the shotgun Muktananda kept in his bedroom. Others saw guns in the hands of "enforcer" Sripati and ashram manager Yogi Ram. The manager of the Indian ashram showed Richard Grimes a pistol that had been smuggled into India for his use. One devotee opened a paper bag in an ashram vehicle in Santa Monica, and found ammunition in it.

Fraud:

On the subject of money, foundation chief Ed Oliver conceded in an October 1, l983, interview with the Los Angeles Times that there is a Swiss account with 1.5 million dollars in it.

Michael Dinga was a foundation trustee, and used to cosign for deposits to the ashram’s Swiss bank accounts, but the amounts on the papers were always left blank. In 1977, however, he got a hint. Ron Friedland, the president of the foundation, told Dinga that Muktananda had 1.3 million dollars in Switzerland. Three years later, Muktananda told Chandra it was more like five million. "And then he laughed, and said, ‘There’s more than that.’"

Assault:

"Muktananda had a ferocious temper," said Grimes, "and would scream or yell at someone for no seeming reason." He saw the guru beating people on many occasions. "In India, if peasants were caught stealing a coconut from his ashram, Muktananda would often beat them," Grimes said. The people in the ashram thought it was a great honor to be beaten by the guru. No one asked the peasants' opinion.

When ex-devotees talked about strong-arm tactics against devotees, the names of two people close to Muktananda kept coming up. One was David Lynn, known as Sripati, an ex-Marine Vietnam vet. The other was Joe Don Looney, an ex-football player with a reputation for troublemaking on the five NFL teams he played for, and a criminal record. They were known as the "enforcers"; Muktananda used them to keep people in line.

On the guru's orders, Sripati once picked a public fight with then-swami Stan Trout at the South Fallsburg ashram. He came down from Boston, where Muktananda was staying, and punched Trout to the ground without provocation. Long-time devotee Abed Simli saw the attack, but figured Sripati had just flipped out. Michael Dinga knew otherwise. Muktananda had phoned him the morning before the beating, and told him Trout’s ego was getting too big, and that he was sending Sripati to set him straight. Dinga, a big man, was instructed not to interfere.

In India, Dinga and a man called Peter Polivka witnessed Muktananda’s valet Noni Patel give a particularly brutal beating to a young follower: A German boy in his twenties, whom Dinga described as "obviously in a disturbed state" had started flailing around during a meditation intensive. The German was hauled outside, put under a cold shower, stripped naked, and laid out on a concrete slab behind the ashram. Dinga said the German just sat in a full lotus position, and tried to steel himself against what happened next.

Noni Patel took a rubber hose, a foot-and-a-half long, and beat and questioned the boy for thirty minutes while a large black man called Hanuman held him. "They were full-strength blows," said Dinga, "and they raised horrible welts on the boy's body."

There exists a long tradition in the East of masters beating their students. Tibetan and Zen Buddhist stories are full of sharp blows that stop the students rational minds long enough for them to become enlightened. Couldn't that have been what Muktananda was doing?

Underage sex, consent in India is 18:

Members of the guru's inner circle, however, say Muktananda regularly had sex with his female devotees. Michael Dinga, an Oakland contractor who was head of construction for the ashram and a trustee of the foundation, said the guru's sexual exploits were common knowledge in the ashram. "It was supposed to be Muktananda's big secret," said Dinga, "but since many of the girls were in their early to middle teens, it was hard to keep it secret." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.54.67 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Still too lengthy (!), but I have looked more closely at the soruces and they, indeed, backup your addition, so I have restored it. Sorry for the inconvenience. El_C 18:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving History to the bottom
Why should we move History to the bottom? I feel the well documented criminal/cult aspect of Siddha Yoga is important and should not be moved to the very bottom of this page by a user who has a history of not good faith editing here. We reached a compromise but you continue editing this article to try to further disguise the controversy section. This is your second attempt since the compromise on content where you've tried to reduce the prominence of the controversy content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.48.83 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm moving controversy back into its own section. TheRingess has provided enough evidence of this bias on this page. They have been accused of bias by multiple editors. We reached a compromise previously to put Controversy into the History section and then after the article was idle TheRingess returned to move History to the bottom of the page. An obvious biased action to try to minimize the controversial aspect and information.

At this point it's clear compromise doesn't work so I'll return to my original position that controversy is a unique section worthy of its own header and not as a subpoint to history. Siddha Yoga is a widely recognized cult at this point and it seems at least one editor here doesn't want anyone finding that out.

TheRingess refuses to use the talk page and just continues the slow edit warring. Arbitration will be sought soon.


 * Fair enough, but firstly, we should avoid Controversy sections, and secondly, if we really want it, it normally goes to the bottom. Thirdly, the material contained in the current Controversy section belongs to Muktananda article, not here. You won't put allegations of popes' misconduct into Christianity article, will you? — kashmīrī  TALK  09:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The current copy is acceptable to me. I added back gun smuggling. "The manager of the Indian ashram showed Richard Grimes a pistol that had been smuggled into India for his use." The controversy section will be expanded further in the future to include additional and more recent information.

In any case, your analogy is faulty. The Pope is not the founder of Christianity. Muktananda is the founder as stated in this very page. If there were records from people claiming Jesus raped them I do think that would belong under Christianity and not just Jesus, wouldn't you?


 * The source doesn't say that the gun was smuggled by Muktananda or anyone related to Siddha Yoga. In law, you can't charge someone with a crime when you have no idea whatsoever who the perpetrator is.


 * Yes, there is no mention in Christianity that its founder met with prostitutes. Or did I miss something?


 * You appear to be pushing a POV. Also, please sign your posts. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section
I removed the controversy section from this article. Since I've been reverted, I'll post an explanation here. While I certainly agree that any controversy section belongs at the bottom of the page, not the top, in this case the sources are simply not sufficient for these sorts of claims. The allegations of sexual misconduct are not cited to the publications which allegedly printed them, nor are they covered by third-party reliable sources. If we're going to cite The New Yorker, for instance, we need to actually link to it and not just to a copy on a webpage (which presumably is also a copyright violation). Even better, we should link to reliable independent sources that corroborate these allegations. I don't believe any of this content can exist in the article without vastly better sources. – bradv  🍁  02:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello - nine minutes before your removal, I added a citation to the original The New Yorker article, including page numbers and URL, but it has since disappeared. It can be found in page history . I always thought that The New Yorker was considered a reliable source per WP:RSP re: it's "robust fact checking process." Was I wrong about that? Netherzone (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I missed that the New Yorker article was cited twice. We'll need to get rid of the other link as it's an obvious copyright violation, but we'll also need to get rid of the remaining unreliable sources – namely those from http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/. Is there enough to draft a coherent controversy section just from the good sources? It may be worth drafting something here on the talk page. – bradv  🍁  03:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:SELFSOURCE.
 * For an additional source, see:
 * Hugh B. Urban, Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion, University of California Press
 * Douglas Otto (2020), An Indian Tantric Tradition and Its Modern Global Revival, Routledge
 * Lola Williamson (2010), ''Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion]], NYUP
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am finally going to weigh in here, despite numerous ad hominem attacks against my character, which I do not nor will not respond to. I contend and always have that the controversy is part of the history of the organization and should be treated as such. However, at the risk of launching my own ad hominem attack, many people coming to this article are pushing a pov. The controversy does not belong at the top because that makes the controversy the main focus of the article. The allegations in both articles are very serious and summarized quite clearly. However we start straying into dangerous territory when we start mentioning people who are still alive and printing for example accusations of weapons smuggling and cover up. If we print them we are essentially printing accusations of criminal conduct about people who are still alive. See WP:BLP for guidelines of what should and should not be published about living people, whether or not they are the subject of the article. So I am once again going to revert so that the controversy remains part of the history of the organization, which it is. To make it not part of the history is to imply that there is an official history and an unofficial history. I will not respond to ad hominem attacks.TheRingess (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, you just restored gun smuggling, etc., and you have been re-adding it countless times for the last 10+ years, so your position is not clear. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point. However the article does not mention any names, and just mentions that there were allegations.  I don't object so much to the use of those words, I object to the mention of specific living people.  To include their names as part of that would be potentially libelous.TheRingess (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just removed the words gun smuggling, its too vague. Plus we can't source it without as I mentioned before, including potentially libelous material about living people.TheRingess (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto for the phrase death threats. Here we really need either more details or to just leave it out.TheRingess (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The url to "leavingsiddhayoga" are also removed; and I added an additional source. The allegations against Muktananda are well-known, and noticed in multiole sources, including academic studies. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank youTheRingess (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The source mentions one underage girl, how got we have plural here? — kashmīrī  TALK  10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Where does the wiki-article say "underage"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was there until this morning, for the last 10+ years. Didn't realise you finally removed it today. — kashmīrī  TALK  11:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , et al, the Caldwell article (which is downloadable from JSTOR) uses the terms "girls and women"; "young girls"; "girls"; "girls and young women"; "a virgin at the age of 16". That does seem to indicate plural and underage. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring the full The New Yorker citation (not just the reprint). In a moment I will add a complete citation for the Caldwell article in the academic journal Nova Religio as it is currently a short cite with (Caldwell 2001). Netherzone (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just now updated the URL so it points to JSTOR where anyone with Wikipedia Library access, or a university/research institution affiliation can read it. (Better than the University of California paywall URL). Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not have access to the entire book The Heart of the Secret, unfortunately. But the provided chapter abstracts already raise my eyebrows. This is further compounded by the two reviews available on JSTOR., writes Suzanne Mrozik. David P. Lawrenc also expresses his reservations. Overall, the book appears to present the author's attempt to deconstruct Tantra as a social phenomenon focused on "scandalous" sexual practices. In support of this proposal, the author goes to analyse "juicy" examples of "perverse" sexual practices of modern Indian gurus, including Vivekananda, Muktananda, etc.
 * As such, in my view this academic dissertation is virtually useless in establishing facts about Siddha Yoga. — kashmīrī  TALK  16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The heart of the secret: A personal and scholarly encounter with Shakta Tantrism in Siddha Yoga is a journal article by Caldwell, not a book. It was published in Nova religion, which is WP:RS, and has 45 citations. Hugh B. Urban published Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion, published by University of Californa Press, and has 345 citations; that's definitely WP:RS. Another author (unfortunately, I can't recall who, but it may have been Otto), writes about the academic perception of Muktananda's practices. It seems that his sexual interactions with female devotees are mostly regarded as tantric practices, yet the opinions about the consequences for the female devotees vary. Some authors have 'downplayed' the implications, while this downplaying has been condemned by others. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

First, I'd like to address the idea that controversy belongs to history. I disagree but decided to check another example on Wikipedia. The Scientology page also has a controversy section and it is not at the bottom of the sections and it's also very prominent. I have decided to emulate this page because I'm sure it has gone through a lot of review processes. A controversy section with a list of controversies to be discussed. Siddha Yoga, from my view as an outsider, seems to be more defined by its' controversial elements than its' claimed spiritual aspects. That is not to say I discredit it entirely but rather to make the point that this is a very controversial organization that has been struggling for decades now with controversy since Muktananda's passing and the exposure of his sexual abuse of members and their families. The controversy is not a subpoint. It's not something to hide away as many editors seem to be trying to do with hand waving terms about tantric secrets as the latest copy tried to do. That is the same ridiculous cover story Siddha Yoga has been using, that Muktananda was an enlightened master and yes he touched some young children, but you just don't understand the secret yoga. No, those claims are debunked by Caldwell and others.

Second, it seems a lot of users here have suggested Leaving Siddha Yoga isn't a viable reference. While I would agree this is true in terms of rehosted articles some of those articles are difficult to find. Leaving Siddha Yoga is intimately connected to the Siddha Yoga story now as it has become the de facto repository for former members to air their grieveances. Only rarely do those stories make it to a publication like New Yorker, NY Times, Salon, etc but in the context of Siddha Yoga, within that universe, those stories and the website itself are huge. Former members themselves often talk about how they used to look at "LSY" regularly while they were members and make excuses, etc. It is a big part of Siddha Yoga regardless of how much the official organization wants it to go away. Therefore, I would argue that in absence of those actual links, it does serve as a viable reference particularly where people have provided their real names to go with their stories and "LSY" is merely hosting them. Those are attributable to a person not anonymous conjecture.

Third, I think the Scientology article approach seems best. It's not my fault that Siddha Yoga is mired in controversy and has a dozen controversial stories that are central to its' existence. That is the organization's fault and just because there seems to be more to remark about the problems with an organization than its merits doesn't mean we should be looking to censor or minimize those aspects.

I've learned more about Siddha Yoga than I ever wanted to when I first began editing this page. What I've learned is that the deeper I look into it the more controversies I find as outlined in my latest edit. Muktananda isn't even the successor to Nityananda except according to his own claims yet on this page we are republishing their own claims with no citations. I have edited both this page and the Muktananda page to remove uncited "guru" like claims regarding the organization and Muktananda where we are left to accept things as fact that no one has ever bothered to ask for citation on before. Most of what remains is only a citation of "Meditation Revolution" which is written by their own members.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also one last note. I'm getting tired of having to add back the references to things like death threats, gun smuggling, etc. This is the same thing that happened long ago when this went to admin arbitration and it was admitted those things are clearly stated in reliable third party references. That is why this time I decided to clearly quote the death threat aspect and make it a separate controversy because it is. It's a very specific story with everyone's names who was involved and what was said including references to legal restraining orders on Siddha Yoga members involved.

If you as an editor don't have the time to find the information just mention it here and we can discuss where it is referenced. I'm happy to add as many quotes and references as needed. However, I somewhat agree with TheRingess that it is unfair to the article. I would much rather see rape, death threats, etc condensed into one controversy item but it seems like whenever this is done it just gets deleted and people "can't find" where that is said. So do we need to quote it all and have a big expansive analysis of these events or can people stop deleting easily supported statements just because they can't be bothered to read the details?

I'm expecting "underage" to become another point of contention. Yes, it was underage. Multiple sources say "early teenage" and one clearly states "a 13 year old girl." Do you want me to quote all of these and drag everything out so we can accept that one word or are you able to extrapolate that the "young girls" comment that you are seeing easily means what it says and isn't only legal consenting adults? I'm fine either way, we can get all the quotes out there, or we can keep things succinct but accurate.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to draw on existing templates. Controversy seems to always be allowed its own section. Why is Siddha Yoga special in that controversy needs to be hidden within a "History" title? I'm fine with Controversy as a subpoint of History but it deserves it's own section in some regard obviously. Here are two examples of similar religious groups which have controversy sections. They are not relegated to history and they are not sub points. They are exactly as in my latest update, a separate section entirely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Controversy_and_criticism

The only other example I can find on Wikipedia is a clear subpoint to controversy that links to a separate page. For example "Catholic" has subpoint "Sexual abuse cases" which links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

I'm fine with this as well as long as controversy is a separate header so that the reader is clearly made aware. The list of controversies compiled though will continue to expand as I do more research. There are several more in the pipeline. This took hours of work and is a rough outline with more to come. Please respect the new material I am adding.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits are very non neutral and look like original research see WP:OR.TheRingess (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Explain how they are not neutral in the same context of the Scientology or Mormon articles above which use an identical format for presenting controversial information. Is it specific wording? Are we still stuck on the idea of a controversy section? Please elaborate why you think this article is special and not deserving of the same formatting used elsewhere in these situations.


 * You have repeatedly said that you think controversy belongs under history but with no subheading. I disagreed and wanted controversy to be it's own heading even if at the bottom of the article. We sought outside admin arbitration due to revision warring and a happy medium was decided at putting controversy as a subpoint of history. Then months later you came back and removed the subpoint and moved history to the bottom of the article.


 * I don't think you're here in good faith and you are in fact the non-neutral article promoter. I'm not the only person to have accused you of this and these accusations are recorded in the history of both the article and this talk page history. Why did you go through this arbitration process only to then come back later and try to get your way regardless? That is an insult to the processes here and speak to your true motivations with this article which is to minimize and remove any obvious references to Siddha Yoga's wide spread criminal, abuse, and cult history. You repeatedly want to hide this under other headlines or remove factual true statements.


 * Please explain what is "non neutral" as requested above given many other articles use this format and also please explain why you believe anyone here should trust your input after you went back on a compromised solution in an attempt to minimize this information.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

206.214.56.81 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not respond to ad hominem attacks.TheRingess (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example of a very non neutral statement: "Siddha Yoga and its' framework of legal trusts and ownership is a highly controversial organization." It violates WP:NPOV by directly stating that it is "controversial". In the context of this article the word controversial is meaningless. It is not the purpose of this article to decide whether or not the organization is controversial. This is also original research, which is not allowed. Who determined that it is controversial? Ditto for sections such as the section on profiteering.TheRingess (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The wording used was derived from the Scientology article. Siddha Yoga IS controversial. That is a factual statement that can't be denied. It has entire organizations devoted to discussing its' controversy and has been noted for its' controversy by several major publications. If you have a problem with that sentence then change it. You're reverting 10,000 words because you don't feel the factual statements made are neutral enough. Then lets reach consensus through editing. I wrote my changes from the perspective of factual reporting of the resources I read which are all linked. I plan to go back and cite things even more clearly so there is no question as to my claims being simple reporting of facts in other reputable publications.


 * First though, you need to clearly state what you think the format should be now. Are you still saying all of this information belongs in history and if so why is it that no other controversial "religious" organization on Wikipedia is doing this? They all have a controversy section?


 * You claim it's ad hominem but it is also FACTUAL that you argued this point for several years now trying to minimize any mention of Siddha Yoga's controversial nature. You have FACTUALLY been accused of protecting this organization by other users, not only me. You FACTUALLY pushed this point to arbitration and accepted a compromise then went back on it thinking the article was idle or whatever. That is all factual information.


 * WHY DID YOU BACK OUT OF THE COMPROMISE WE REACHED VIA A THIRD PARTY? UNTIL YOU PROVIDE A REASON YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ARTICLE NON-NEUTRAL AND REFUSING TO REACH CONSENSUS. SIMPLE FACTS.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not fact. It is an opinion.  If you wish to write an article about Siddha Yoga, submit it to a reputable journal, then your research can be published here.TheRingess (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Controversies

Main article: Scientology controversies See also: Scientology and the legal system Official German information leaflets from the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution on (from left to right) Islamic extremism, Scientology, and organized crime.[250][251] "Several states published pamphlets about Scientology that detailed the Church's ideology and practices. States defended the practice by noting their responsibility to respond to citizens' requests for information about Scientology as well as other subjects. While many of the pamphlets were factual and relatively unbiased, some warned of alleged dangers posed by Scientology to the political order, to the free market economic system, and to the mental and financial well being of individuals. Beyond the Government's actions, the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church have been public opponents of Scientology. Evangelical 'Commissioners for Religious and Ideological Issues' have been particularly active in this regard."

The Church of Scientology is a highly controversial organization. "

Exactly the format I chose for this article because they fit almost exactly. Two religious organizations that claim there is nothing controversial about them. That have a history of violence and threats against former members who speak out against them.

Why do you still refuse to answer any of these questions? I'll make it easier:

1. What is your desired format for informing readers of Siddha Yoga's controversial history such as the fact that its' founder raped underage girls?

2. Why do you think Siddha Yoga should have a different format from other controversial religions on Wikipedia who use a controversy section?

3. Why do you claim it's "original research" to claim Siddha Yoga is controversial? How is this different than Scientology article clearly stating the organization is controversial?

4. What other examples of original research exist and why are you not addressing them rather than doing a large revert?

5. Why did you decide to go back on an arbitrated compromise to make controversy a subheader of history? For months we had a compromise and then you came back and removed it and have still refused to address why.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand WP:NPOV then there is no need for further discussion. I do not respond to ad hominem attacks. Good day.  I will respond no more.TheRingess (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:CSECTION and WP:OTHERSTUFF for the inclusion of a controversy-section. See WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:UNDUE for the section itself. And see WP:CONSENSUS for the utter lack of consensus to include your writings. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you stop POV pushing now. You might hold grudges against the article's subject, but this alone does not give you a licence to smear it all over using cherrypicked sources and unsourced material. If you continue your crusade, the only outcome you'll achieve will be either a block of your account or protection of this article. You may have valid arguments, however the proper way is to discuss them with other editors here before refactoring the article into an attack page. — kashmīrī  TALK  09:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's not twist the facts around. I already made a comrpromise with TheRingess and they went back on it. That is a huge slap in the face to me and yet I'm supposed to pretend it didn't happen? I'm only asking for a RETURN to consensus. Also do any of you even read your own links?

" Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."

This IS about a religious topic.

"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."

Yes, there is a large body of critical material and many independent secondary sources discuss this.

"Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy."

Ok, so I should remove controversy and leave the rest of my edit which did exactly this? Why is it that no one worked to reach consensus through discussion or editing if this is the case?

All of your "rules" you keep linking apply to you more than me. TheRingess broke a previous compromise and is demanding to get their way. Saying "controversial tantric" is not neutral and takes the Siddha Yoga position that raped women just misunderstood yoga. You link me to controversy sections which state to do exactly what I did. Seriously, it's insane. What exactly are you asking me to do? I'm following your rules, I'm asking for compromise, I'm trying to reach consensus, TheRingess goes back on previous agreements and just says "I refuse to talk" and it's apparently fine?

I have no grudge or anything against Siddha Yoga. I came here what, 2 years ago, and saw none of the major controversies were listed so I worked to give them more prominence against an onslaught of removal by TheRingess, a reversal of previous compromise, and a refusal to reach consensus by editing or discussion which is exactly what your article says to do.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I will make small edits to make discussion and consensus easier. I've removed the current "controversial tantric acts" section due to the sources not supporting the claims and its contents seeming to be mostly original research. This will be added again shortly under history as desired by TheRingess and per the guidelines provided on how to address controversy.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring
In the interest of moving forward, I propose: That the subsection (level-3 heading) currently named "Controversial tantric practices" be changed to it's own (level-2 heading) section titled "Controversy". Rationale: sex with underage girls is not a controversial tantric practice, it is in fact statutory rape whether or not it was consensual. Placement: I don't care where the section is placed in the article, but it should not be nested under a level 2 heading. Sourcing: There is proper sourcing at this time. If the content is expanded, can all we agree, for the sake of peace moving forward, that each sentence be sourced with an inline citation? Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed to both the new heading and that all new content will be sourced. I do have some concerns though because many of the "sources" being used by those who keep trying to hide the controversial issues aren't actually legitimate or so it seems. I'd like to add that any sourced material should actually state what is being claimed. One editor, for example, is trying to source something claiming Muktananda was a tantric yoga practitioner but in reality that source (Caldwell) was trying to get to the bottom of that claim as a means of dismissing his rape. She concludes "these accounts bear little resemblance to the ecstatic Kaula rituals described by Abhinavagupta in his antraloka, and lack their most essential component, a fully aware, consenting female partner or yogini. Whatever Baba was doing, claiming it to be a form of Tantric initiation, seemed rather to retain only the bodily shell of a Tantric practice that once held out the promise of profound enlightenment experience for both the man and woman."


 * Let's stop trying to pretend Muktananda and Siddha Yoga are a tantric yoga sex group because it's not. Misconstruing sources and then lying that my statements aren't backed up by those same sources isn't legitimate. I'm pretty tired of the one sided beating over the head with rules that don't apply, sources that don't back up claims, and demands that everything meet TheRingess' standard. TheRingess already went back on a compromise reached with an admin and yet no one seems to care, deletes 10,000 words of copy from me saying it's not sourced and makes things biased but then I delete a small "tantric sex controversy" section that contains obvious lies and attempts to characterize rape as yoga and then she reverts and says the section is fine and I can try to modify it instead of removing it. Exactly what I had asked her to do with my content.


 * Sources need to support claims and they need to be actual sources. Also let's not forget that "Meditation Revolution" which is used to support many claims is written by Siddha Yoga practitioners and therefore shouldn't be considered a neutral source for anything other than claims about Siddha Yoga's beliefs.


 * 206.214.56.81 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we please just discuss my proposal? Netherzone (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sure, I agree, but I would add that it needs to be rewritten because the current copy isn't neutral and contains lies about claims of tantra using sources that actually discredit that claim. I suggest the content under the new heading be the original controversial content that had existed here for months and we can work from there.206.214.56.81 (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could also go on to the talk page of the editors who created the content and invite them to participate. Though they may see this section and weigh in.  Since we are inviting consensus it hardly seems fair to exclude them.TheRingess (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is excluded, all voices are welcome to post here. Netherzone (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Object against a separate controversy-section, per WP:CSECTION.
 * Regarding Caldwell, see the same page 25:
 * See WP:TENDENTIOUS. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  02:44, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I fail to understand why you would respond to my proposal with an accusation of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I have only made a few edits on the article ] and none of them are disruptive. Netherzone (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose a separate controversy section, per above and WP:NPOV. Please work the controversies organically into the body of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose a separate controversy section, per above and WP:NPOV. Please work the controversies organically into the body of the article. Elizium23 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Do any of you actually read those pages?


 * "Philosophy, religion, or politics - For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. "


 * I already stated previously that the controversy section I added was modeled after other existing controversial religious pages and when you linked that page I told you it clearly states to do what I did. You've been here reverting my changes that follow the guidelines you claim to want others to follow.


 * Did you read it? Did you read Caldwell? Do you read any of this stuff or just link rules and revert edits you don't like and misconstrue sources? This is a legitimate question because you keep linking things that actually support doing exactly what I did. It still seems obvious to me that there is a lot of bias on the part of those who keep trying to confuse the issue and claim rules are being broken when in reality they're the ones breaking those very rules. Again, are you reading these things yourselves, or what? From my perspective it makes you look pretty stupid or biased to keep linking something that supports doing exactly what we're proposing and trying to claim it as the reason why we shouldn't do it.


 * Paging Joshua, did you read it? Have we reached consensus now since your own link states explicitly to add a controversy section? Again we need to determine the larger format before discussing the content itself. 206.214.56.81 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Caldwell quote, we can resolve that once the format is fixed, per my request above which was ignored. Before we talk about content we need to determine the proper format. According to your own links the format proposed is correct. A controversy section of subheadings for each controversy. Exactly what I did and then TheRingess broke 3RR to try to remove it.206.214.56.81 (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

the IP is tendentious, not you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the clarification, I appreciate your quick response. To all: I still feel strongly that the article contains an obfuscation of the facts. Having sex with teenage girls, whether it is consensual or not, or whether it is a "spiritual practice" or not is still statutory rape. (At least in the U.S. where these events occurred.) Why not simply say that, rather than describe the events as "Shaktipat and controversial tantric practices"?
 * The exact words "statutory rape", does not need to be used, however evasive descriptors like "activities" or "interactions" conceals the facts from our readership. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now we get to the crux of my issue. For years the article has presented the fact that these allegations and accusations were made public in two major articles. They were summarized succinctly in order to keep the article balanced between a presentation of the tenets and practices of the organization and a fair presentation of the accusations made.  I've had to argue with people who believed that the accusations were false, reminding them that to classify the accusations as such was non neutral and way beyond the scope of a wikipedia article.  I have also had to remind editors that it is beyond the scope of this article as well to label the allegations as "facts" as true since that would also make the article non neutral as well.  Now the gist of this conversation seems to be to present these allegations and accusations as fact.  I am not going to give my opinion one way or the other, the allegations seems imminently credible, but in the absence of further criminal investigations or civil lawsuits they remain accusations.  It is not libelous to say that the allegations saw the light of day, it is just the truth that they did.  It is potentially libelous to present those allegations as fact in this article as it would implicate many living people who supposedly participated in the criminal activity (and if memory servers Harris was very careful in the New Yorker article to present them as allegations rather than fact).  In essence we are stating that every person who knew Muktananda also knew he was engaged in criminal behavior so they were at best accessories at worst they actively conspired to cover up criminal activity.   This is just my viewpoint, contrary to what you yourself have accused me, I don't own this article.  Maybe we should just make it quite clear that he was as guilty as charged and that many members of the organization covered it up.  We can then just let the chips fall where they may.  Perhaps you will argue that the "evidence" is overwhelming, so be it.  Perhaps it is.  I am also curious why Shaktipat, which has a sentence in the intro, is grouped together with the controversy, it seems to imply that the concept of shaktipat is in and of itself a controversial topic, rather than a religious belief.TheRingess (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for this, it helps clarify things. Allegations is correct, is it libelous to use that word?
 * I think it will be useful if you and I can agree to move past my use of the word "ownership". The reason I used that word is in looking back through many years of article history I saw a pattern emerge which looked alot like ownership. I also stated that I admired that you were keeping the article "clean" which was meant as a complimentary balance of "owny". I give you the benefit of the doubt, will you extend the same --- I think we have the same goal here.
 * I too am curious about why Shaktipat is now grouped with the controversy. Netherzone (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I too am curious about why Shaktipat is now grouped with the controversy. Netherzone (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I too am curious about why Shaktipat is now grouped with the controversy. Netherzone (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

--
 * Thank you. I agree that we can move past that. I believe, and am no expert, that allegations is not libelous.  I believe news organizations tend to use words like allegations and/or accusations in order to avoid libel and slander.  In news articles a person is often "alledged" to have committed a crime.TheRingess (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * False. The article, prior to my first edit, was written in a way that did not make it even remotely clear what Muktananda was accused of and it also did not make mention to large body of controversies surrounding Siddha Yoga. Also the same INCORRECT Caldwell quote was being used that is trying to be brought back now. As already stated Caldwell concludes he was not doing tantra, just that he was knowledgeable about it, yet the current copy still tries to use this source as a mean's to diminish what was happening. Same with the wording that "women said he had sex with them" which makes it sound like a celibacy issue not a rape accusation. Your statement is factually wrong according to this diff. For years the article did NOT present any of these allegations or accusations. It used the same misleading phrases and couched terms to try to minimize what the real controversy and accusations are. When I went back and clearly stated that Muktananda was accused of raping girls, etc you immediately reverted and fought with me over it. I'm sure I may have used poor wording as well but ultimately the 3RR was broken, an admin got involved, we reached a compromise and went back on it to try to restore the same minimizing phrases seen on the copy today where a faulty incorrect source is being used to try to say this was some tantric yoga controversy. Still waiting for you to explain why you thought it was okay to go back on this compromised solution and content if you're so neutral. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siddha_Yoga&diff=886552142&oldid=865325123

206.214.56.81 (talk) 17:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of arguing about content still which is rather pointless because the list of controversies extends far beyond the rape of children as seen in my original edit. We need to cover Nityananda's departure and him reporting being beaten, the legal threats to the newspaper that published his account, etc.

Have we reached consensus now that a controversy header can be added to house all these stories? We can discuss the content of each of those items as they're added to that section. I propose that we stay focused on RESTRUCTURING and not rewriting sentences or rehashing wording. So far I've been shown CSECTION which clearly states in bold letters to have a controversy section so if we're following that then the matter is resolved and the proposal is accepted.

Let's move this along, unless someone else has a reason we shouldn't follow the CSECTION that was linked by the opponents of adding this section. They linked it. Maybe this misread it. In any case it says what it says, if I'm missing something let me know. 206.214.56.81 (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * IP 206.214.56.81, can we agree not to bicker and blame others moving forward? I really think it will help to achieve a better quality of discourse that will hopefully lead to consensus. As we are seeing, achieving consensus can be a messy thing, so it helps to turn down our emotional responses and try to be patient and trust the process. Trying to force a consensus or a solution will only cause more disruption. We are all fellow volunteer editors committed to the integrity of the encyclopedia; can we agree on taking things slowly and communicating calmly and succinctly? Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not going to agree not to "bicker and blame" when people are attacking me. As Johnathan just did saying my list can be completely ignored because of my poor writing and lack of sources. The same lack of sources as last time when an admin got involved and apologized to me for assuming I wasn't 100% correct about everything I wrote and it all being in the sources? I'm not going to be the nice guy when people aren't respecting me.


 * Why don't you ask TheRingess to stop being a jerk first? Let's see that content restored to something closer to what we had agreed to and not an insanely one sided take that I have to argue against now. Let's see TheRingess apologize for not using the talk page for the last, what 3-6 months, of me asking them to do so? How many times did I ask them? Probably at least 10 times with zero response from them except edit summaries. TheRingess apologize for going back on the compromise? Anytime and I'll be happy to return the respect. My experience here is that I'm being bullied repeatedly and no one cares and keeps asking me to be the nice guy and wait and see how the bullies will handle it and what they will allow on their article.


 * I return the same respect that I get. TheRingess has been a jerk to me since I first edited this page to change "had sex with women" to "raped underage girls." They display ownership. They go back on compromises. They break 3RR. On and on and then people ask me to calm down and work with them. Yeah, been there, saw where that got us with the months later revert of consensus and ZERO discussion or reasoning still as to why that was done. Whatever.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, no personal attacks. See WP Conduct policy: WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Netherzone (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, take the helm captain, show me how the process works. I outlined a clear list of major controversies. The details are in my large edit and in this talk page history that TheRingess "archived" which also had most of the same issues detailed the last time we went through this. It's pretty clear to me that I'm not allowed to edit the page but others who are using incorrect sources which don't support their claims, yadda yadda, are free to do whatever they want. I won't bother anymore. Show me how it all works bro! I believe! I'll trust you but not this process. You see how ridiculous it is to mask this controversy when the facts are obvious and well supported. Just don't lose sight of all the other major controversies as well. It's a large compelling story really about how Muktananda was exposed as a sexual deviant and the organization fell apart because of it. The death threats, the two gurus, Muktananda not being an actual successor of Nityananda, etc it's all connected to that but it is all part of the larger story that some editors here refuse to let be told even in a succinct directly sourced manner. I'll check back in a month and see what happened. My guess is people will say no one cares anymore and things will look pretty much how they do now.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 02:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, slow down. I ask that you kindly don't refer to me as captain or bro, because I prefer my user name. We have heard your arguments. I imagine several of us are thinking about them. Here's an essay that has been useful to me, perhaps you will like it too. WP:COOL. Netherzone (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversies Section Initial Copy
In the interest of moving forward again, I propose that the issue of having a controversy section is settled. This is supported by opponents of the idea referencing WP:CSECTION which clearly states the following:

" Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."

"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. "

This confusion and misconstruing is evident in the latest revised page copy and talk comments by others above. In short, exactly what CSECTION advises to avoid has been done on the Siddha Yoga page and it has resulted in exactly what CSECTION says may occur if a separate controversy section is not used.

All other accusations leveled towards me as an editor relate to accusations I would equally level at my detrators. However, I am also willing to admit my last copy was not fully cited and may not have been fully neutral. I knew for a fact some of it was not cited and would be questioned but I will say all of it is factually true and backed up by third party sources I hadn't referenced at the time. Maybe I let my frustration about TheRingess' going back on our compromised solution cause me to write something not neutral. I still don't know because they refused to actually call out any statement specifically as not neutral other than calling Siddha Yoga a controversial organization which I simply copied from the Scientology page as a one sentence starter to the controversy section.

Therefore, for now, I won't propose any content but rather will continue to focus on structure first. I propose the following format for our controversy section. Given the length of controversies to be covered, at least 6 of which are major controversies central to the organization, I would also propose we can simply have a controversies header that includes a link to a separate controversies page which lists them in more detail. I removed some of the original things I had put in my edit. Profiteering from 9/11 may be considered a minor controversy but it was covered by the New York Times which is a major publication and therefore seems worthy of inclusion. Cult accusations is somewhat ambiguous but also seems noteworthy given a doctoral thesis was written on Siddha Yoga as a cult, another licensed psychotherapist who became one due to being in Siddha Yoga for 10 years wrote a book centered around it's abusive nature and called it a cult, and it was featured in a television show about cults. That is 3 mainstream and academic references of Siddha Yoga as a cult. In any case, those seem to be the two weaker topics and I would be okay leaving them out if it allows us to reach consensus faster.

Controversies:

Rape Accusations

Two Gurus

Death Threats

Cult Accusations

Leaving Siddha Yoga

New Yorker article

Profiteering from 9/11

Nityananda successor

206.214.56.81 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You thoroughly misundedstand what WP:CSECTION is about. We're not talking about criticism of a particular point of view, we're talking about controversial behavior; wiki-custom is to integrate this into the rest of the article. And, given the poor quality of your writing and the lack of sources, your bullit-list proposal can be rejected right-away. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If that is the case why are most other religious articles following the controversy header format? You say it's wiki custom not to do this. I've already shown several examples where the custom is to do exactly what is said in CSECTION. You could argue that maybe using a controversy header is wrong and that all controversies should be separate header items which is also suggested. However, for religious articles, intermixing controversy or criticism isn't advised and leads to exactly the confusion displayed above regarding why shakti and raping minors is now comingled. Can you provide ANY evidence that this isn't the case given your own linked article confirmed my viewpoint? Not your random statements but actual quotes that support your viewpoint which I ask you to outline below.


 * The quality of my writing is subjective. The sources in my writing were numerous and as already mentioned more were to be added. So, no, my list of controversies should not be rejected. Each of those items is a separate controversy and most are central to Siddha Yoga. The founders rape of children, the founders use of members to make death threats, the establishment of two gurus officially and then the "resignation" of one who wrote a letter detailing abuse and threats which Siddha Yoga used legal threats to get them to retract, and so on. These aren't trivial incidents. They are central to the guru or lineage of Siddha Yoga. This isn't some random member did something. It's the core guru's behavior.


 * Oddly, anywhere I try to put this it gets removed by someone, so where SHOULD this information be? You keep denying that we can have a controversy section even though it's VERY obvious CSECTION says that is how it should be handled or a list of controversies without the section. What are you proposing? Where does the death threats controversy information go in the article if not under it's own header or a controversy header? I would not accept putting it under history with no header. Keep in mind a compromise was already reached in the past to have a controversy subheader in history, should we return to that? How about a subheader in history for each controversy?

206.214.56.81 (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, I asked you two questions in the above Restructuring section. Could you please answer? Netherzone (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:CSECTION
I have read and re-read WP:CSECTION and the talk page of Criticism. My understanding of the essay is that in the case of philosophy or religion articles, it is indeed appropriate to include a "Criticism" or "Controversy" section. The rationale in the essay states: Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. This is key, and why the controversial incidents should not be placed in the subsection, "Controversial tantric practices" nested within the "Teachings and Practices" section, as it runs contrary to the recommendations of CSECTION.

It is not unusual for an article to have a Controversy or Criticism section, there is an established precedent; see this list of 23,750 wikipedia articles for example:. Of course, not all of these are philosophy, religion or spirituality articles, but in browsing the first 500 or so, all of these articles have Controversy or Criticism sections: Christianity, Hinduism, Religion, 14th Dalai Lama, Kabbalah, Agnosticim, Talmud, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Polyamory, Mormonism, Church of Scientology, Modern Orthodox Judaism, Islamic eschatology, Hedonism, Pacisfism, Islam in the United States. There is no reason why the Siddha Yoga article should not have a separate section for this content. It does not cause undue weight as the vast majority of the article is positive. I am of the mind that a "Controversy" section should go at the bottom of the article, below History, but not embedded within History. I was encouraged at ANEW to be bold and will boldly make that change. Netherzone (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You've got a point; I mixed-up Siddha Yoga, and Muktananda himself. Yet, there is a differnce between criticism and controversy. And personally, I don't like criticism-sections; they invite undue pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your reply. I am pretty sure the article is now in compliance with guidelines and policies. Everything is well sourced, no BLP violations, no undue weight, nor potential legal issues. I hear what you say about criticism sections potentially inviting undue POV-pushing, however, I think there are enough of us watching the article (including some admins because of the ANEW report) that they can be addressed without too much drama. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua and Netherzone.TheRingess (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , and thank you for keeping a cool head for so many years, even when you were misunderstood (like by me!). Thank you for the excellent editing and finding solid reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Moving History to the bottom
Why should we move History to the bottom? I feel the well documented criminal/cult aspect of Siddha Yoga is important and should not be moved to the very bottom of this page by a user who has a history of not good faith editing here. We reached a compromise but you continue editing this article to try to further disguise the controversy section. This is your second attempt since the compromise on content where you've tried to reduce the prominence of the controversy content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.214.48.83 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm moving controversy back into its own section. TheRingess has provided enough evidence of this bias on this page. They have been accused of bias by multiple editors. We reached a compromise previously to put Controversy into the History section and then after the article was idle TheRingess returned to move History to the bottom of the page. An obvious biased action to try to minimize the controversial aspect and information.

At this point it's clear compromise doesn't work so I'll return to my original position that controversy is a unique section worthy of its own header and not as a subpoint to history. Siddha Yoga is a widely recognized cult at this point and it seems at least one editor here doesn't want anyone finding that out.

TheRingess refuses to use the talk page and just continues the slow edit warring. Arbitration will be sought soon.


 * Fair enough, but firstly, we should avoid Controversy sections, and secondly, if we really want it, it normally goes to the bottom. Thirdly, the material contained in the current Controversy section belongs to Muktananda article, not here. You won't put allegations of popes' misconduct into Christianity article, will you? — kashmīrī  TALK  09:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The current copy is acceptable to me. I added back gun smuggling. "The manager of the Indian ashram showed Richard Grimes a pistol that had been smuggled into India for his use." The controversy section will be expanded further in the future to include additional and more recent information.

In any case, your analogy is faulty. The Pope is not the founder of Christianity. Muktananda is the founder as stated in this very page. If there were records from people claiming Jesus raped them I do think that would belong under Christianity and not just Jesus, wouldn't you?


 * The source doesn't say that the gun was smuggled by Muktananda or anyone related to Siddha Yoga. In law, you can't charge someone with a crime when you have no idea whatsoever who the perpetrator is.


 * Yes, there is no mention in Christianity that its founder met with prostitutes. Or did I miss something?


 * You appear to be pushing a POV. Also, please sign your posts. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section
I removed the controversy section from this article. Since I've been reverted, I'll post an explanation here. While I certainly agree that any controversy section belongs at the bottom of the page, not the top, in this case the sources are simply not sufficient for these sorts of claims. The allegations of sexual misconduct are not cited to the publications which allegedly printed them, nor are they covered by third-party reliable sources. If we're going to cite The New Yorker, for instance, we need to actually link to it and not just to a copy on a webpage (which presumably is also a copyright violation). Even better, we should link to reliable independent sources that corroborate these allegations. I don't believe any of this content can exist in the article without vastly better sources. – bradv  🍁  02:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , hello - nine minutes before your removal, I added a citation to the original The New Yorker article, including page numbers and URL, but it has since disappeared. It can be found in page history . I always thought that The New Yorker was considered a reliable source per WP:RSP re: it's "robust fact checking process." Was I wrong about that? Netherzone (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I missed that the New Yorker article was cited twice. We'll need to get rid of the other link as it's an obvious copyright violation, but we'll also need to get rid of the remaining unreliable sources – namely those from http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net/. Is there enough to draft a coherent controversy section just from the good sources? It may be worth drafting something here on the talk page. – bradv  🍁  03:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:SELFSOURCE.
 * For an additional source, see:
 * Hugh B. Urban, Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion, University of California Press
 * Douglas Otto (2020), An Indian Tantric Tradition and Its Modern Global Revival, Routledge
 * Lola Williamson (2010), ''Transcendent in America: Hindu-Inspired Meditation Movements as New Religion]], NYUP
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  05:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I am finally going to weigh in here, despite numerous ad hominem attacks against my character, which I do not nor will not respond to. I contend and always have that the controversy is part of the history of the organization and should be treated as such. However, at the risk of launching my own ad hominem attack, many people coming to this article are pushing a pov. The controversy does not belong at the top because that makes the controversy the main focus of the article. The allegations in both articles are very serious and summarized quite clearly. However we start straying into dangerous territory when we start mentioning people who are still alive and printing for example accusations of weapons smuggling and cover up. If we print them we are essentially printing accusations of criminal conduct about people who are still alive. See WP:BLP for guidelines of what should and should not be published about living people, whether or not they are the subject of the article. So I am once again going to revert so that the controversy remains part of the history of the organization, which it is. To make it not part of the history is to imply that there is an official history and an unofficial history. I will not respond to ad hominem attacks.TheRingess (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, you just restored gun smuggling, etc., and you have been re-adding it countless times for the last 10+ years, so your position is not clear. — kashmīrī  TALK  08:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a valid point. However the article does not mention any names, and just mentions that there were allegations.  I don't object so much to the use of those words, I object to the mention of specific living people.  To include their names as part of that would be potentially libelous.TheRingess (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I just removed the words gun smuggling, its too vague. Plus we can't source it without as I mentioned before, including potentially libelous material about living people.TheRingess (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ditto for the phrase death threats. Here we really need either more details or to just leave it out.TheRingess (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The url to "leavingsiddhayoga" are also removed; and I added an additional source. The allegations against Muktananda are well-known, and noticed in multiole sources, including academic studies. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  09:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank youTheRingess (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The source mentions one underage girl, how got we have plural here? — kashmīrī  TALK  10:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Where does the wiki-article say "underage"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  10:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was there until this morning, for the last 10+ years. Didn't realise you finally removed it today. — kashmīrī  TALK  11:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , et al, the Caldwell article (which is downloadable from JSTOR) uses the terms "girls and women"; "young girls"; "girls"; "girls and young women"; "a virgin at the age of 16". That does seem to indicate plural and underage. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for restoring the full The New Yorker citation (not just the reprint). In a moment I will add a complete citation for the Caldwell article in the academic journal Nova Religio as it is currently a short cite with (Caldwell 2001). Netherzone (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Just now updated the URL so it points to JSTOR where anyone with Wikipedia Library access, or a university/research institution affiliation can read it. (Better than the University of California paywall URL). Netherzone (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not have access to the entire book The Heart of the Secret, unfortunately. But the provided chapter abstracts already raise my eyebrows. This is further compounded by the two reviews available on JSTOR., writes Suzanne Mrozik. David P. Lawrenc also expresses his reservations. Overall, the book appears to present the author's attempt to deconstruct Tantra as a social phenomenon focused on "scandalous" sexual practices. In support of this proposal, the author goes to analyse "juicy" examples of "perverse" sexual practices of modern Indian gurus, including Vivekananda, Muktananda, etc.
 * As such, in my view this academic dissertation is virtually useless in establishing facts about Siddha Yoga. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The heart of the secret: A personal and scholarly encounter with Shakta Tantrism in Siddha Yoga is a journal article by Caldwell, not a book. It was published in Nova religion, which is WP:RS, and has 45 citations. Hugh B. Urban published Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion, published by University of Californa Press, and has 345 citations; that's definitely WP:RS. Another author (unfortunately, I can't recall who, but it may have been Otto), writes about the academic perception of Muktananda's practices. It seems that his sexual interactions with female devotees are mostly regarded as tantric practices, yet the opinions about the consequences for the female devotees vary. Some authors have 'downplayed' the implications, while this downplaying has been condemned by others. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

First, I'd like to address the idea that controversy belongs to history. I disagree but decided to check another example on Wikipedia. The Scientology page also has a controversy section and it is not at the bottom of the sections and it's also very prominent. I have decided to emulate this page because I'm sure it has gone through a lot of review processes. A controversy section with a list of controversies to be discussed. Siddha Yoga, from my view as an outsider, seems to be more defined by its' controversial elements than its' claimed spiritual aspects. That is not to say I discredit it entirely but rather to make the point that this is a very controversial organization that has been struggling for decades now with controversy since Muktananda's passing and the exposure of his sexual abuse of members and their families. The controversy is not a subpoint. It's not something to hide away as many editors seem to be trying to do with hand waving terms about tantric secrets as the latest copy tried to do. That is the same ridiculous cover story Siddha Yoga has been using, that Muktananda was an enlightened master and yes he touched some young children, but you just don't understand the secret yoga. No, those claims are debunked by Caldwell and others.

Second, it seems a lot of users here have suggested Leaving Siddha Yoga isn't a viable reference. While I would agree this is true in terms of rehosted articles some of those articles are difficult to find. Leaving Siddha Yoga is intimately connected to the Siddha Yoga story now as it has become the de facto repository for former members to air their grieveances. Only rarely do those stories make it to a publication like New Yorker, NY Times, Salon, etc but in the context of Siddha Yoga, within that universe, those stories and the website itself are huge. Former members themselves often talk about how they used to look at "LSY" regularly while they were members and make excuses, etc. It is a big part of Siddha Yoga regardless of how much the official organization wants it to go away. Therefore, I would argue that in absence of those actual links, it does serve as a viable reference particularly where people have provided their real names to go with their stories and "LSY" is merely hosting them. Those are attributable to a person not anonymous conjecture.

Third, I think the Scientology article approach seems best. It's not my fault that Siddha Yoga is mired in controversy and has a dozen controversial stories that are central to its' existence. That is the organization's fault and just because there seems to be more to remark about the problems with an organization than its merits doesn't mean we should be looking to censor or minimize those aspects.

I've learned more about Siddha Yoga than I ever wanted to when I first began editing this page. What I've learned is that the deeper I look into it the more controversies I find as outlined in my latest edit. Muktananda isn't even the successor to Nityananda except according to his own claims yet on this page we are republishing their own claims with no citations. I have edited both this page and the Muktananda page to remove uncited "guru" like claims regarding the organization and Muktananda where we are left to accept things as fact that no one has ever bothered to ask for citation on before. Most of what remains is only a citation of "Meditation Revolution" which is written by their own members.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Also one last note. I'm getting tired of having to add back the references to things like death threats, gun smuggling, etc. This is the same thing that happened long ago when this went to admin arbitration and it was admitted those things are clearly stated in reliable third party references. That is why this time I decided to clearly quote the death threat aspect and make it a separate controversy because it is. It's a very specific story with everyone's names who was involved and what was said including references to legal restraining orders on Siddha Yoga members involved.

If you as an editor don't have the time to find the information just mention it here and we can discuss where it is referenced. I'm happy to add as many quotes and references as needed. However, I somewhat agree with TheRingess that it is unfair to the article. I would much rather see rape, death threats, etc condensed into one controversy item but it seems like whenever this is done it just gets deleted and people "can't find" where that is said. So do we need to quote it all and have a big expansive analysis of these events or can people stop deleting easily supported statements just because they can't be bothered to read the details?

I'm expecting "underage" to become another point of contention. Yes, it was underage. Multiple sources say "early teenage" and one clearly states "a 13 year old girl." Do you want me to quote all of these and drag everything out so we can accept that one word or are you able to extrapolate that the "young girls" comment that you are seeing easily means what it says and isn't only legal consenting adults? I'm fine either way, we can get all the quotes out there, or we can keep things succinct but accurate.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to draw on existing templates. Controversy seems to always be allowed its own section. Why is Siddha Yoga special in that controversy needs to be hidden within a "History" title? I'm fine with Controversy as a subpoint of History but it deserves it's own section in some regard obviously. Here are two examples of similar religious groups which have controversy sections. They are not relegated to history and they are not sub points. They are exactly as in my latest update, a separate section entirely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Controversy_and_criticism

The only other example I can find on Wikipedia is a clear subpoint to controversy that links to a separate page. For example "Catholic" has subpoint "Sexual abuse cases" which links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases

I'm fine with this as well as long as controversy is a separate header so that the reader is clearly made aware. The list of controversies compiled though will continue to expand as I do more research. There are several more in the pipeline. This took hours of work and is a rough outline with more to come. Please respect the new material I am adding.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits are very non neutral and look like original research see WP:OR.TheRingess (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Explain how they are not neutral in the same context of the Scientology or Mormon articles above which use an identical format for presenting controversial information. Is it specific wording? Are we still stuck on the idea of a controversy section? Please elaborate why you think this article is special and not deserving of the same formatting used elsewhere in these situations.


 * You have repeatedly said that you think controversy belongs under history but with no subheading. I disagreed and wanted controversy to be it's own heading even if at the bottom of the article. We sought outside admin arbitration due to revision warring and a happy medium was decided at putting controversy as a subpoint of history. Then months later you came back and removed the subpoint and moved history to the bottom of the article.


 * I don't think you're here in good faith and you are in fact the non-neutral article promoter. I'm not the only person to have accused you of this and these accusations are recorded in the history of both the article and this talk page history. Why did you go through this arbitration process only to then come back later and try to get your way regardless? That is an insult to the processes here and speak to your true motivations with this article which is to minimize and remove any obvious references to Siddha Yoga's wide spread criminal, abuse, and cult history. You repeatedly want to hide this under other headlines or remove factual true statements.


 * Please explain what is "non neutral" as requested above given many other articles use this format and also please explain why you believe anyone here should trust your input after you went back on a compromised solution in an attempt to minimize this information.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

206.214.56.81 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not respond to ad hominem attacks.TheRingess (talk) 22:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example of a very non neutral statement: "Siddha Yoga and its' framework of legal trusts and ownership is a highly controversial organization." It violates WP:NPOV by directly stating that it is "controversial". In the context of this article the word controversial is meaningless. It is not the purpose of this article to decide whether or not the organization is controversial. This is also original research, which is not allowed. Who determined that it is controversial? Ditto for sections such as the section on profiteering.TheRingess (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The wording used was derived from the Scientology article. Siddha Yoga IS controversial. That is a factual statement that can't be denied. It has entire organizations devoted to discussing its' controversy and has been noted for its' controversy by several major publications. If you have a problem with that sentence then change it. You're reverting 10,000 words because you don't feel the factual statements made are neutral enough. Then lets reach consensus through editing. I wrote my changes from the perspective of factual reporting of the resources I read which are all linked. I plan to go back and cite things even more clearly so there is no question as to my claims being simple reporting of facts in other reputable publications.


 * First though, you need to clearly state what you think the format should be now. Are you still saying all of this information belongs in history and if so why is it that no other controversial "religious" organization on Wikipedia is doing this? They all have a controversy section?


 * You claim it's ad hominem but it is also FACTUAL that you argued this point for several years now trying to minimize any mention of Siddha Yoga's controversial nature. You have FACTUALLY been accused of protecting this organization by other users, not only me. You FACTUALLY pushed this point to arbitration and accepted a compromise then went back on it thinking the article was idle or whatever. That is all factual information.


 * WHY DID YOU BACK OUT OF THE COMPROMISE WE REACHED VIA A THIRD PARTY? UNTIL YOU PROVIDE A REASON YOU ARE THE ONE MAKING THE ARTICLE NON-NEUTRAL AND REFUSING TO REACH CONSENSUS. SIMPLE FACTS.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not fact. It is an opinion.  If you wish to write an article about Siddha Yoga, submit it to a reputable journal, then your research can be published here.TheRingess (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "Controversies

Main article: Scientology controversies See also: Scientology and the legal system Official German information leaflets from the Bavarian Office for the Protection of the Constitution on (from left to right) Islamic extremism, Scientology, and organized crime.[250][251] "Several states published pamphlets about Scientology that detailed the Church's ideology and practices. States defended the practice by noting their responsibility to respond to citizens' requests for information about Scientology as well as other subjects. While many of the pamphlets were factual and relatively unbiased, some warned of alleged dangers posed by Scientology to the political order, to the free market economic system, and to the mental and financial well being of individuals. Beyond the Government's actions, the Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church have been public opponents of Scientology. Evangelical 'Commissioners for Religious and Ideological Issues' have been particularly active in this regard."

The Church of Scientology is a highly controversial organization. "

Exactly the format I chose for this article because they fit almost exactly. Two religious organizations that claim there is nothing controversial about them. That have a history of violence and threats against former members who speak out against them.

Why do you still refuse to answer any of these questions? I'll make it easier:

1. What is your desired format for informing readers of Siddha Yoga's controversial history such as the fact that its' founder raped underage girls?

2. Why do you think Siddha Yoga should have a different format from other controversial religions on Wikipedia who use a controversy section?

3. Why do you claim it's "original research" to claim Siddha Yoga is controversial? How is this different than Scientology article clearly stating the organization is controversial?

4. What other examples of original research exist and why are you not addressing them rather than doing a large revert?

5. Why did you decide to go back on an arbitrated compromise to make controversy a subheader of history? For months we had a compromise and then you came back and removed it and have still refused to address why.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand WP:NPOV then there is no need for further discussion. I do not respond to ad hominem attacks. Good day.  I will respond no more.TheRingess (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * See WP:CSECTION and WP:OTHERSTUFF for the inclusion of a controversy-section. See WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:UNDUE for the section itself. And see WP:CONSENSUS for the utter lack of consensus to include your writings. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you stop POV pushing now. You might hold grudges against the article's subject, but this alone does not give you a licence to smear it all over using cherrypicked sources and unsourced material. If you continue your crusade, the only outcome you'll achieve will be either a block of your account or protection of this article. You may have valid arguments, however the proper way is to discuss them with other editors here before refactoring the article into an attack page. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  09:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's not twist the facts around. I already made a comrpromise with TheRingess and they went back on it. That is a huge slap in the face to me and yet I'm supposed to pretend it didn't happen? I'm only asking for a RETURN to consensus. Also do any of you even read your own links?

" Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."

This IS about a religious topic.

"In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material."

Yes, there is a large body of critical material and many independent secondary sources discuss this.

"Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy."

Ok, so I should remove controversy and leave the rest of my edit which did exactly this? Why is it that no one worked to reach consensus through discussion or editing if this is the case?

All of your "rules" you keep linking apply to you more than me. TheRingess broke a previous compromise and is demanding to get their way. Saying "controversial tantric" is not neutral and takes the Siddha Yoga position that raped women just misunderstood yoga. You link me to controversy sections which state to do exactly what I did. Seriously, it's insane. What exactly are you asking me to do? I'm following your rules, I'm asking for compromise, I'm trying to reach consensus, TheRingess goes back on previous agreements and just says "I refuse to talk" and it's apparently fine?

I have no grudge or anything against Siddha Yoga. I came here what, 2 years ago, and saw none of the major controversies were listed so I worked to give them more prominence against an onslaught of removal by TheRingess, a reversal of previous compromise, and a refusal to reach consensus by editing or discussion which is exactly what your article says to do.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I will make small edits to make discussion and consensus easier. I've removed the current "controversial tantric acts" section due to the sources not supporting the claims and its contents seeming to be mostly original research. This will be added again shortly under history as desired by TheRingess and per the guidelines provided on how to address controversy.

206.214.56.81 (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Controversies Section Initial Copy
In the interest of moving forward again, I propose that the issue of having a controversy section is settled. This is supported by opponents of the idea referencing WP:CSECTION which clearly states the following:

" Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."

"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. "

This confusion and misconstruing is evident in the latest revised page copy and talk comments by others above. In short, exactly what CSECTION advises to avoid has been done on the Siddha Yoga page and it has resulted in exactly what CSECTION says may occur if a separate controversy section is not used.

All other accusations leveled towards me as an editor relate to accusations I would equally level at my detrators. However, I am also willing to admit my last copy was not fully cited and may not have been fully neutral. I knew for a fact some of it was not cited and would be questioned but I will say all of it is factually true and backed up by third party sources I hadn't referenced at the time. Maybe I let my frustration about TheRingess' going back on our compromised solution cause me to write something not neutral. I still don't know because they refused to actually call out any statement specifically as not neutral other than calling Siddha Yoga a controversial organization which I simply copied from the Scientology page as a one sentence starter to the controversy section.

Therefore, for now, I won't propose any content but rather will continue to focus on structure first. I propose the following format for our controversy section. Given the length of controversies to be covered, at least 6 of which are major controversies central to the organization, I would also propose we can simply have a controversies header that includes a link to a separate controversies page which lists them in more detail. I removed some of the original things I had put in my edit. Profiteering from 9/11 may be considered a minor controversy but it was covered by the New York Times which is a major publication and therefore seems worthy of inclusion. Cult accusations is somewhat ambiguous but also seems noteworthy given a doctoral thesis was written on Siddha Yoga as a cult, another licensed psychotherapist who became one due to being in Siddha Yoga for 10 years wrote a book centered around it's abusive nature and called it a cult, and it was featured in a television show about cults. That is 3 mainstream and academic references of Siddha Yoga as a cult. In any case, those seem to be the two weaker topics and I would be okay leaving them out if it allows us to reach consensus faster.

Controversies:

Rape Accusations

Two Gurus

Death Threats

Cult Accusations

Leaving Siddha Yoga

New Yorker article

Profiteering from 9/11

Nityananda successor

206.214.56.81 (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You thoroughly misundedstand what WP:CSECTION is about. We're not talking about criticism of a particular point of view, we're talking about controversial behavior; wiki-custom is to integrate this into the rest of the article. And, given the poor quality of your writing and the lack of sources, your bullit-list proposal can be rejected right-away. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * If that is the case why are most other religious articles following the controversy header format? You say it's wiki custom not to do this. I've already shown several examples where the custom is to do exactly what is said in CSECTION. You could argue that maybe using a controversy header is wrong and that all controversies should be separate header items which is also suggested. However, for religious articles, intermixing controversy or criticism isn't advised and leads to exactly the confusion displayed above regarding why shakti and raping minors is now comingled. Can you provide ANY evidence that this isn't the case given your own linked article confirmed my viewpoint? Not your random statements but actual quotes that support your viewpoint which I ask you to outline below.


 * The quality of my writing is subjective. The sources in my writing were numerous and as already mentioned more were to be added. So, no, my list of controversies should not be rejected. Each of those items is a separate controversy and most are central to Siddha Yoga. The founders rape of children, the founders use of members to make death threats, the establishment of two gurus officially and then the "resignation" of one who wrote a letter detailing abuse and threats which Siddha Yoga used legal threats to get them to retract, and so on. These aren't trivial incidents. They are central to the guru or lineage of Siddha Yoga. This isn't some random member did something. It's the core guru's behavior.


 * Oddly, anywhere I try to put this it gets removed by someone, so where SHOULD this information be? You keep denying that we can have a controversy section even though it's VERY obvious CSECTION says that is how it should be handled or a list of controversies without the section. What are you proposing? Where does the death threats controversy information go in the article if not under it's own header or a controversy header? I would not accept putting it under history with no header. Keep in mind a compromise was already reached in the past to have a controversy subheader in history, should we return to that? How about a subheader in history for each controversy?

206.214.56.81 (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, I asked you two questions in the above Restructuring section. Could you please answer? Netherzone (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)