Talk:Sivananda Saraswati

Apologies on my conduct against the Holy Master
Sri Swami Sivananda is my Gurudeva, and I simply cannot understand why I have gone about doing what I have just done in the last weeks. Pure arrogance and ignorance on my part. I beg forgiveness to everyone I might've offended an especially, Gurudeva Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj Himself. I am grateful that you have deleted the section and my sinful mistake. Om Namo Bhagavate Sivanandaya! Om Sriman Mahaganadhipataye Namah! - ShriDenhi 19:33 (AT) August 7, 2006

Its okay... nevertheless, this article requires some cleaning up from so many red links and bad aesthetics.. --Leafy 13:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
not moved per WP:HONORIFICS and inadequate demonstrated support for 'Swami' in common usage. --rgpk (comment) 17:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sivananda Saraswati → Swami Sivananda Saraswati — Relisted. --rgpk (comment) 17:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC) In keeping with other articles on Hindu sannyasins. I would have moved it myself, but the page exists as a redirect.--Devadaru (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Very strongly oppose. We do not include honorifics except as form of disambiguation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, dear PMAnderson, this subject has been discussed at Talk:Swami_Bhaskarananda_Saraswati, and there the decision was made to keep the article at Swami Bhaskarananda Saraswati, not to remove the Swami. It seems that Swami is something more than an honorific. Kindly have a look at the discussion there. Best wishes, Devadaru (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see also talk:Swami Vivekananda for yet another discussion on this. Devadaru (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose' Swami is an honorific title and honorifics aren't normally applied to names. The WP:NCIN guidelines, which applies direct to indic names, and MOS:HONORIFIC discourage the use of honorifics .--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at the discussions above. And WP:NCIN which you referenced says the following: "Generally, titles and honorifics should not be used either in the article body or when naming an article. However, exceptions may apply to individuals who are widely known by an honorific name or with a title.
 * Examples are Sri Chand where 'Sri' is a title and A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada where Swami and Prabhupada are honorific."
 * I would argue that Swami Chinmayananda and Swami Sivananda are both widely known by those names. This also would be in keeping with most other Hindu monks on Wikipedia, like Swami Vivekananda. 22:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devadaru (talk • contribs)
 * For the common name exception to apply it needs to be an overwhelming case. My google book search produced more hits for Sivananda Saraswat (478 hits for Sivananda Saraswati and 369 hits for Swami Sivananda Saraswati) because using Swami Sivananda Saraswati excludes those resources that do not apply to honorific.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. By the way, the "about xx results" in Google are notoriously inaccurate. If you go to the last record (in small searches) you can get the exact number of results. "Swami Sivananda Saraswati": 175; "Sivananda Saraswati":233; "Swami Sivananda":"350"; are the results I got. Searching for "Swami Sivananda" -"Swami Sivananda Saraswati" yielded 369! It looks like (as I suspected) the name by which the subject is most well known is "Swami Sivananda", so I would change my move proposal, and propose to move the page to "Swami Sivananda". Well, what about consistency? You will notice that most of the articles on Hindu monks are with the "Swami" prefix. Would you propose to move all of them? And I have argued elsewhere that "Swami" is not an honorific in quite the way that "Sri" is; but forms part of a sannyasin's name; it serves to identify a sannyasin as such. "Sri" merely says, "this guy is honorable", but "Swami" says, "this guy is a monk". Best wishes, Devadaru (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We avoid using religious honorifics whenever possible because of unavoidable neutrality issues. In this case, as with most people titled "swami", the title is avoidable. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like no one is addressing my points and the points raised in other discussions about this. I still doubt that "swami" is an honorific; it is clearly in a different class than "Sri". Moreover, common use suggests using "swami". Oh well, looks like the few people who are weighing in here on the issue disagree.. Best wishes. Devadaru (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to Swami Sivananda?
Per COMMMONNAME, this should be moved to Swami Sivananda, like it is done with the Paramhansa Yogananda article title. (Also, in the discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kriyananda#Requested_move, User:Yworo says that Swami becomes an inseparable part of their name after their deaths). --Trphierth (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammar in introduction
The last paragraph reads:

"Sivananda Yoga, the yoga form propagated by his disciple Swami Vishnudevananda, are now spread in many parts of the world through Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres, which was spread by him, whom Swami Sivananda sent to the west to spread yoga. However, these centres are not affiliated to Sivānanda's ashrams which are run by the Divine Life Society."

This could use some fixing. Here is my suggestion, though it should be cleared with someone more familiar with the topic before being edited:

"Sivananda Yoga, the yoga form propagated by his disciple Swami Vishnudevananda, is now spread in many parts of the world through Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres. These centres are not affiliated with Sivānanda's ashrams, which are run by the Divine Life Society."

69.204.91.53 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made your suggested change, thank you for your contribution. -Lopifalko (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022
Swami Sivananda is ALIVE, but is marked dead in 1963. This individual received highest honor from the Preside t of India on 21st March 2022. Please update the page to reflect that he is ALIVE.

81.96.204.144 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC) 81.96.204.144 (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Er, that would make him about 135 years old, which would be a world record by far. I don't see his name in the Guinness World Records. He died on 14 July 1963. I don't know who took the award for him this month but it was clearly somebody else.


 * The Divine Life Society itself recorded Swami Sivananda's death in July 1963, in its publication I Live to Serve, subtitled Intimate Glimpses into Gurudev Sivananda’s Last Days, with the words


 * "When the holy Master Swami Sivanandaji Maharaj discarded his physical sheath in July 1963, letters came pouring in from devotees everywhere desiring us to convey to them details of Gurudev’s last days. At that time, preoccupied as we all were in the Ashram with diverse matters of immediate consequence, we could not meet the wishes of the devotees in full measure. We did publish details of Gurudev’s illness, the treatment given to him, his Mahasamadhi and the ceremonies which followed; but we could give only an outline of his last days. Now we present in the following pages a more detailed account of the touching incidents which filled the Master’s life during the period immediately preceding his Mahasamadhi."


 * I would hope that since Swami Sivananda's own Divine Life Society clearly describes his Mahasamadhi in 1963, the matter can be taken as agreed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Chiswick Chap I now believe there's a confusion over the person. See Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's Yoga guru Swami Sivananda who received the presidential award this month. I've added hatnotes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

He is alive
He is alive and recieved Padamshree from indian govt on 22.03.2022 146.196.34.234 (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)


 * See the item above. That's a different Sivananda, not the famous Sivananda Saraswati. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Works
This entire section relies on one source. I clicked the link and it takes me to the worldcat.org search page, pointing to no specific source. This does not comply with WP:RS. I am going to remove this section, but leaving this message on the talk page in the event anyone else is able to find a reliable source for this content. Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Not properly sourced content, feel free to remove it. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perfect thanks! Just wanted to be sure before I did so.
 * Whitestar12 (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)