Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Yoga


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Deciding which title is appropriate isn't exactly something AfD is suited to, and may be better off remaining a content dispute. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Agni Yoga

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination. Agni Yoga was moved to Living Ethics a few weeks ago, and substantially rewritten. The move was then disputed via an edit war and a highly acrimonious and inconclusive RfD discussion. It appears that one of these articles is potentially a POV fork of the other, and that AfD, rather than RfD, is the place to deal with it. I have restored both articles and offer them here for resolution. I'm just here because I closed the RfD discussion - having no knowledge or interest in either, I am neutral. ~ mazca  talk 10:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also nominated:


 * I'm the article's primary writer. As mazca says, a few weeks ago Agni Yoga was moved to Living Ethics and virtually deleted in the "rewrite," which itself was tantamount to a (poor) translation of the Russian Wikipedia article on Living Ethics. I'm glad that the deletion is finally being discussed as such, and sincerely hope that interested parties will bring forward coherent arguments for keeping or deleting the article, so that an appropriate decision may be made. Arguments have already been made at RfD discussion, but I will repeat some of them in relation to the question of whether Agni Yoga ought to be kept.

Deodarvostok, the editor who deleted Agni Yoga and replaced it with Living Ethics, gives as reasons for the deletions: Agni Yoga does not cite secondary or tertiary sources; it contains original research; it "was the personal opinion of Agni Yoga Society"; and "Living Ethics is much more exact than article Agni Yoga reflects substantive provisions teaching Living Ethics, is fuller, scientific, encyclopedic, in it Nikolay Roerich's pictures are used." As a reason for changing the title from "Agni Yoga" to "Living Ethics," the article itself asserts that "Agni Yoga" is "another equivalent but less widespread meaning" of "Living Ethics," by which is meant that "Agni Yoga" is a less widely used equivalent.

Starting with the title, it is true that the Agni Yoga teaching also calls itself "the Teaching of Living Ethics" a few dozen times, but it refers to itself as "Agni Yoga" several hundred times. Moreover, the majority of the books are subtitled "Signs of Agni Yoga." I can't speak about the situation in Russia, but at least in the West, India, and Japan, the teaching is much more widely known as "Agni Yoga," "Living Ethics" being an alternative title that underlines the practical, ethical nature of the teaching. Thus, for an English language article the title "Agni Yoga" is far more appropriate.

The assertion that the article was connected with the Agni Yoga Society is absolutely groundless. I wrote my portion of the article on my own, without the consent, cooperation, or consultation of anyone in the AYS. There are only a few references to the AYS in my article, all of them neutral. My lack of involvement in promoting the AYS is clearly shown by my effort to edit out what I considered (and still consider) to be an erroneous reference to the AYS added to the initial paragraph.

The criticism that Agni Yoga lacks citations of secondary sources is justifiable. The problem is that there are few books or articles on Agni Yoga in English; so far as I know, they are even lacking in theosophical journals. I did include citations to a few books, but willy-nilly ended up relying on primary sources, which I cited heavily in order to avoid the appearance or reality of personal interpretations. I would be happy if somebody supplemented or rewrote parts of the article, providing citations from good secondary sources; in fact, I myself would like to read, reference, and quote good Russian sources when I have more time. So, yes, there is over-reliance on primary sources, but is this a reason to delete the entire article? Rather, isn't this a reason to improve it?

If linking up facts in itself can be called "research," the charge of "original research" has some justification. Again, the situation is that there aren't many secondary sources in English that give answers to such questions as: Who transmitted Agni Yoga to whom, and how? What is Agni Yoga about? What is it like? What are key concepts and terms? How is it different from other Yogas? How is it related to other teachings? What is written on the cover of the books and why? These are FAQs that an encyclopedia article needs to answer, and in fact Agni Yoga does so, albeit with some reliance on an "original" assemblage of facts and citations. Is this originality a good reason to chuck the whole article? I don't think so.

Now turn to the Living Ethics article whose author considers it to be much more "exact, full, scientific, and encyclopedic" than Agni Yoga. How many of these basic FAQs does it answer? Master Morya, who transmitted the teaching to the Roerichs, is not even named, although his name is on the first two books of the teaching. "Agni" is never defined, and the teaching is never discussed as a form of Yoga or related to other Yogas. The words on the covers of most of the books, "Maitreya Sangha," are never mentioned, much less explained; in fact, "Maitreya" and "Shambhala," key concepts in the Agni Yoga teaching, are entirely absent from Living Ethics.

Do you see a pattern emerging here? From the title on, Living Ethics presents a version of the Agni Yoga teaching devoid of Agni, Yoga, Masters, Maitreya, Shambhala, chakras, Armageddon, astrology… Anything that might turn off somebody with a secular, scientific mindset has been deleted--just as my article was. If Deodarvostok or the Intl. Roerich Centre in Moscow want to present this particular version of the Agni Yoga teaching to the public, that's fine with me; perhaps that's what still works best in what was once the USSR. But a Wikipedia article is not the forum to present an airbrushed version of anything. Agni Yoga is full of religious, mystical, and millenarian allusions that Living Ethics photoshops away and replaces with diffuse, secondary-sourced statements bland enough for anyone with "spiritual" leanings to nod agreement with. Things like "It is important to maintain and increase cultural wealth of all the peoples of Earth." It also teems with minute detail on conferences held at the Moscow Centre, and we're treated to numerous quotes from Russian dignitaries. The President of All-Union Academy of Agriculture named after V. I. Lenin informs us, "Reliable source of ethic norms is the works of great humanists of all ages and peoples, Teaching of the Christ, life and activity of such genies of mankind as Leo Tolstoy and F. Dostoevsky, Michelangelo and Nicholas Roerich, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, Sergius of Radonezh, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King." Is this "scientific"? Or in any way relevant to the topic?

At the beginning of Deodarvostok's article, "Living Ethics" is defined as a teaching "based on the books written by Helena and Nicholas Roerich in the first half of the XX century, in cooperation with the Teachers of the East." Precisely, Living Ethics offers a teaching based on the books, while my article seeks to convey the teachings that are actually transmitted in the books, not a secularized version of them. So we definitely are writing about different things, and this isn't a matter of content forking. I think Living Ethics is a soapbox for the Moscow Centre, its activities, its chief (the article includes two photos of her and none of the Roerichs), and its version of what the Agni Yoga books teach. In my opinion it should be replaced by a shorter, well-written, honest article on the Roerich Centre. On the other hand, none of the shortcomings in my article are so grave as to merit deletion. Imperfect as it is, it does the job. I ask that Wikipedia Keep it. --Asiaj (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From perspective of Wikipedia users first question is whether the subject covered by both articles merits inclusion. No doubt the subject is Yoga and general article about Yoga is already available. If so, Agni Yoga article should be there to provide basic information about this Yoga of our age.

In books proper of Agni Yoga, “Agni Yoga” is mentioned 177 times while “Living Ethics” is mentioned 15 times. We should not rename this teaching which was given to the broadest audience as a path of Yoga.

To be true, in Letters of Helena Roerich “Living Ethics” is mentioned 131 times and “Agni Yoga” 68 times. My impression is that main reason for such difference might be more specific target audience and time when these letters were written.

Back to the articles, Agni Yoga looks more like NPOV encyclopedia entry while Living Ethics looks more like promotional material. Thus, I’d keep and improve the former.

-- Tabibito8 (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to comment some points connected with recent redirection of an article “Agni Yoga” by new article “Living Ethics”.


 * Looking through a discussion about this I think that indignation of co-author of the article “Agni Yoga” Asiaj is quite explainable, he (or she, or they) is right in something. However, in common sense the redirection made is not only justified but reasonable too. Why? I give some considerations below.


 * At the very beginning of the article “Agni Yoga” the readers have learned that simultaneously with creation of the Living Ethics Teaching the Agni Yoga Society was found. What for this information is here? All the more that Asiaj said he is not a member of this Society. So, the reader must think that AGS is only true follower of the Teaching. Where is information about other societies, which were founded later but were also important for the Roerichs? I mean Riga’s society; many members of it were in correspondence with Helena Ivanovna, and also Roerich’s societies of other Baltic and European countries.


 * In the same place of very beginning the name of Roerich’s Teacher is mentioned. Why? Is this necessary? It is most deep name for any Roerich’s follower… And then nothing about who is this Person…


 * Very disputable issue is Asiaj’s statement about that his article is more corresponding for the name “Agni Yoga”. The article “Agni Yoga” really complicates the question since it declares many incomprehensible notions for reader unknown with Oriental terminology. For example, Mother of the World, Maytreya, Shambala. Last notion Asiaj determines as “a mysterious abode in Central Asia”. I think Roerichs would be very amazed at such determination. It is widely known how Helena and Nicholas Roerich negatively related to the word “Mystic”.


 * It is clear that to reveal such complex notion as Psychic energy can only Roerichs themselves (excluding A.I.Klizovsky, his book “About psychic energy” was approved by H.I. Roerich). And small wonder that the authors of article “Agni Yoga” can’t do this, in my opinion. numerous citations from the Teaching only confuse the readers.


 * The main reason of Asiaj’s irritation is, in my opinion, usual Russophobia. The first point of his discussion remarks is:


 * “Article is basically a (poor) translation of the Russian Wikipedia article on “Living Ethics.” It was written in Russian for Russians who may have access to the Russian sources cited and may be impressed by a quote from a Russian Cabinet minister. The previous article was written for readers of English.”


 * This statement can be understood as full unwillingness to learn Russian sources and to divide the world on Russian and English parts. Why? But Russian readers would respect with great interest to the quotes from American government about Roerichs or Living Ethics (if it will be, certainly). Poor English of the article “Living Ethics” can easily be perfected; it is not problem for English readers. The new article “Living Ethics introduces the English-language readers not only the Teaching, which is elucidated from point of view modern philosophic and science studies, but also with modern cultural and public achievements of Russian followers. I mean an activity of International Centre of the Roerichs, other Russian societies, international scientific conferences, philosophic works of L.V.Shaposhnikova and other interesting things what are little known for English readers.


 * In conclusion, I think that main difference between two articles is that the first of them shows the Teaching as esoteric Teaching of Yoga, the second elucidates it as deep philosophical and ethic conception. In my opinion, the last approach is more interesting and useful for modern readers.


 * Ayupp 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Written here Talk:Living Ethics --Deodarvostok (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Now to the actual subject at hand: there is no doubt that in the English-speaking world the Teaching is known as the Teaching of Agni Yoga. The term "Living Ethics" is certainly known to Agni Yoga followers but is rarely used. While in Russian the term "Living Ethics" (Zhivaya Etika) would likely be associated with Agni Yoga, in the West this would not in fact be an obvious reference - note for example two books on the subject: Living Ethics - across media platforms and Living Ethics - An Introduction, both of which have nothing to do with Agni Yoga. Thus I submit that the title of the article in English should be "Agni Yoga", rather than "Living Ethics". As far as the content, I agree with Tabibito8 that the Agni Yoga article reads like a proper encyclopedia entry, with history, background and explanation of the subject, whereas the Living Ethics article reads like promotional material for the Moscow International Centre of the Roerichs. To quote from Ayupp above: "The new article “Living Ethics introduces the English-language readers not only the Teaching, which is elucidated from point of view modern philosophic and science studies, but also with modern cultural and public achievements of Russian followers. I mean an activity of International Centre of the Roerichs, other Russian societies, international scientific conferences, philosophic works of L.V.Shaposhnikova and other interesting things what are little known for English readers." That is precisely the problem, that rather than talk about the Agni Yoga Teaching, the Living Ethics article focuses on the activity of the International Centre of the Roerichs, and its narrow interpretation of the Teaching. No "other Russian societies" are described in the article, giving the impression that all societies in Russia follow the sectarian approach of the ICR, which is not the case. All the "international scientific conferences" are organized by the ICR. L.V. Shaposhnikova is ICR's founder and head. Certainly there could be an expanded section in the article covering the modern activities in the Agni Yoga sphere, which could mention ICR, other societies in Russia (such as the Samara center and its "Agni" publishing house), the Agni Yoga Society in New York, other societies in North America, translation work and conferences by Corona Mundi in Switzerland, numerous societies in Latin America and Europe, etc. But that section should exist within the Agni Yoga article, not have it be replaced wholesale by an article focused on one Moscow center. Thus I ask that Wikipedia keep the Agni Yoga article.
 * First of all, let me respond to the point that Asiaj made above: "The assertion that the article was connected with the Agni Yoga Society is absolutely groundless." I was the one who had originally made this assertion, and yes, it was incorrect. I have since clarified the issue and would like to withdraw that assertion.

Mmratner (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that Deodarvostok is responding above to what I have written. Something may have been lost in translation, but the meaning comes across. But while this belated dialog is welcome, I'm afraid none of the points Deodarvostok makes validate deletion of the article and few bear scrutiny.

Deodarvostok says that I claimed I'm not a member of AYS; I've said nothing about membership, which has no bearing on this article. He criticizes the mention of AYS in the initial paragraph; as I said, I didn't write that passage, in fact I tried to delete it. He could have tried doing the same, and also tried adding something about the Riga group, if he considered that important. The genius of Wikipedia is that articles can be modified--hopefully improved--and not simply deleted.

"In the same place of very beginning the name of Roerich’s Teacher is mentioned. Why? Is this necessary?" Of course it is necessary in an encyclopedia article; one of the first things anyone would want to know is who gave the Agni Yoga teaching to whom. It's not a big secret. "And then nothing about who is this Person…" There is an internal link for "Morya" that readers can easily go to. Similarly, "Maitreya," "Shambhala," "Yoga," and all the rest of the Oriental terms have internal links. Wikipedia is a perfect forum to bring up such terminology. Anyone reading the Agni Yoga books will soon encounter all of these terms and more--many of them not Oriental, by the way.

"Mysterious" and "mystic" are different words expressing different ideas in English. Since nobody knows if we are he or she or they, Deodarvostok and I are mysterious, but that doesn't mean we're mystics.

The usual Russophobia? Usual for whom? If anything, I'm a Russophile. The point of the sentence was that what may be impressive for Russians may not be for English-speaking Wikipedia readers who are from many countries (not just America). Attributing what people write to irritation or phobias is not constructive.

We finally get a substantial statement at the end. "In conclusion, I think that main difference between two articles is that the first of them shows the Teaching as esoteric Teaching of Yoga, the second elucidates it as deep philosophical and ethic conception. In my opinion, the last approach is more interesting and useful for modern readers." This is a tacit admission that the Agni Yoga Teaching is an "esoteric Teaching of Yoga"--there's no denial of this obvious fact--but that the "approach" of the "Living Ethics" article leaves out the "esoteric" stuff and instead presents the same Teaching as a deep philosophical and ethical teaching, because that's what is interesting and useful to people nowadays. Personally, I'm not able to make a judgment about what "modern readers" might find interesting and useful in the Agni Yoga teaching; moreover, I don't think such a judgment ought to be a major factor in determining what to include in the article and what to leave out. The purpose of the article is to acquaint the readers with basic facts about the Agni Yoga teaching, not to attract them to it--or to a "modern" version of it. It might be okay to leave out the esoteric content in, say, a public presentation, but in a wide-reaching forum like Wikipedia, such an omission represents a serious distortion of the facts. That omission becomes all the more glaring given the presence of so much superfluous material in the "Living Ethics" article, material that offers little of relevance about the actual teaching of Living Ethics. --Asiaj (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me quote from the book Agni Yoga:

185. Some of the young may ask, "How should one understand Agni Yoga?"

Say, "As the perception and application in life of the all-embracing element of fire, which nourishes the seed of the spirit."

This clearly indicates character of Agni Yoga, as spiritual practice.

Then, next quote from the book Aum :

'''569. Is the fragmentary character of these notes accidental? May it not be that in this mosaic there is contained a rhythm and a special design? Let friends sometimes reflect upon why this system has been selected'''!

This indicates that mosaic like nature of Agni Yoga teaching is not an accident.

I agree with Ayupp that Living Ethics article attempts to present Agni Yoga as "deep philosophical and ethic conception". But I see no need to for that in Wikipedia. Wikipedia article needs to present Agni Yoga as practice (which it is). It should also avoid summaries of the teaching and changing its presentation style so to make it more palatable to contemporary readers (which is futile). -- Tabibito8 (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 15:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

It is unlikely that we will see consensus on this. This is because the articles take quite different perspectives. Essentially, someone has to decide which article is closer to Wikipedia entry format. Author(s) of dropped article can then consider how to merge it with the selected one.

-- Tabibito8 (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Of the two, this is the closest to an encyclopedic  article. Not all that closer--much too long and discursive. But the other article is impossibly like puffery and public relations, and, if merge, as it should probably be, not all that much of it will be needed.    DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The current article has a few interesting points but is poorly written and does indeed seem like public relations for the author's cause, rather than an objective, informative article. I have been considering getting a subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica, as I recently read they have several thousand paid researchers and they thoroughly research and document their articles. This particular case is a very clear example of how Wikipedia can be taken over by emotional egos with a hidden agenda. I hope reason and objectivity will return and the original article will return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2knewt (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A few months ago there was a very informative article about Agni Yoga. I was going to show it to a friend of mine the other day and was very surprised to see that it had completely disappeared.


 * I realized in retrospect that I should clarify by "present article" that I mean the "Living Ethics" article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2knewt (talk • contribs) 07:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment by  DGG is right on the nose. The Agni Yoga article is long but we should Keep it and improve it. The parts of Living Ethics worth merging are the Roerich pictures and the photo of New Era Community in Mir. The text of "Living Ethics" is inferior to "Agni Yoga," and it's possible that better Russian sources may be found than those cited in "Living Ethics," if having Russian-language secondary sources is considered helpful in an English article.

There won't be total consensus, because the person who arbitrarily deleted Agni Yoga and replaced it with a flawed article is incapable of acknowledging a single mistake of his own, while eager to point out the alleged errors of others (use of the word mysterious, for example). But everyone else sees Living Ethics for the promotional material that it is. The Russian version even has a photo of the books that the International Centre in Moscow is selling! --Asiaj (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion of Deodarvostok
"It is translated with the help http://www.translate.ru" (Excuse me for bad translation)

Article Agni Yoga as it stands does not correspond to a number of rules of Wikipedia:
 * No original research and Reliable sources

In article there is no reference to the authoritative source confirming the written, there is no link to a secondary source. Instead the primary source is used only, and it is inadmissible. The author of article has stated "to the personal" understanding of Live Ethics, has written that "personally to it" seems to the main things in this doctrine. The author didn't refer on recognised authorities, didn't refer to such scientific sources as encyclopaedias, dictionaries, monographies, etc. Look following editions: Living Ethics and Living Ethics. In these sources the sight at Roerich's doctrine essentially disperses from a sight of authors of article Agni Yoga.

Therefore article Agni Yoga is written not about Live Ethics (Agni Yoga), and about its understanding by the author (and it is possible still some) and thus contradicts modern scientific sources. Also it is the basic and most important lack of this article.

About section Agni Yoga and Other Teachings:

The author of article does not know the historic facts.

The section begins with words: " Historically speaking, Agni Yoga is one of several teachings that developed within the theosophical movement that H. P. Blavatsky, Henry Steel Olcott, William Quan Judge, and their associates launched in 1875 ". On the basis of what such conclusion not clearly is drawn. In one of academic publications and scientific researches on it it is not informed. Everywhere about Live Ethics it is informed as on the independent doctrine, instead of teosophy. Communication of the doctrine of Roerichs with Blavatskaya's doctrine undoubtedly is, but to "teosophy to movement" it doesn't concern, since is "the independent" doctrine.

Helena Roerich wrote:

Should tell that Н. К, except compositions Е. P.Bl [avatsky], any teos[ophic] didn't read books, for he prefers primary sources and is well familiar with East Thought and those works from which got the data and Е. Books of Ramakrishny, Suomi Vivekanandа, Bhagavadgita, the book on the Buddhism, Llamas-rim of the Tszon-ka-pas etc. were P.Bl as well I can tell about myself that my first terrestrial teachers. With theosophy the literature I have met only in America and should tell that after East pearls and compositions Е. P.B. This literature hasn't presented for me the slightest interest, some compositions even have pushed away. (From the letter H.I.Roerich to Н. P.Serafininoj from 1.7.1937 / Roerich H. I. Letters. V. 5. — М: ICR, 2003 - P. 13.)

"«She [Helena Roerich] spoke highly of Annie Besant»". It not so. Helena Roerich appreciated only one early book of Bezant. As a whole it concerned Bezant critically enough and in the letters wrote:

But the book of joint creativity of A.Bezant and Ledbitera comprising ostensibly lives of Great Teachers and some pupils is especially awful: Mrs. Bezant, Ledbitera, Krishnamurti, Arundel etc. I seldom met something equal on lack of taste, blasphemy and falsity. (From the letter H.I.Roerich to A.I.Klizovskomu from 0.06.1934 / Roerich H.I. . V. 2. — М: ICR, p. 199—200)

"Mark and Elizabeth Prophet, founders of The Summit Lighthouse and the Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT), claimed that" Ascended Master El Morya "commissioned them to carry on the work of the Roerichs, and that their daughter was an incarnation of Helena Roerich". Is an encyclopaedic information? It has a direct bearing on Roerichs? Now there were some tens similar "incarnations", and each "incarnation" confirms, what exactly it the real incarnation, and others not the presents. It is necessary to write about all "incarnations" here? In my opinion, it already from area of parkway esoterics. Modern scientists don't agree with similar statements.

Thus, article Agni Yoga is not encyclopaedic, contains a false information, breaks rules of Wikipedia, discredits the scientists who are engaged in research of a heritage of Roerichs and consequently has been replaced with article translated from Russian Wikipedia.

Article Living Ethics

Roerich were citizens of Russia. Svetoslav Roerich passed all the legacy of their parents in Russia, the International Center of the Roerich. It is therefore not surprising that the main legacy of the Roerich research conducted in Russia. Based on the works of the most influential U.S. and international scientists and was written article in Russian Wikipedia, and then translated to English Wikipedia.

At article writing secondary authoritative scientific sources were used:


 * Gindilis L.M., Frolov V.V. Philosophy of Living Ethics and its interpreters. Roerich's movement in Russia / / Journal «Problems of philosophy» N 3, 2001.


 * Gindilis L.M. - The academician of Academy of astronautics of a name of Tsiolkovsky. Frolov V.V. - The Doctor of Philosophy, the professor. Their article is published in authoritative scientific magazine «Problems of philosophy» which is published under the direction of the Russian Academy of Sciences.


 * Also in article works in used L. V. Shaposhnikovoj. Shaposhnikova L V. - General director of Museum by name of Nicolas Roerich, Honored Art Worker of RF, Academician of Russian Academy of Cosmonautics named after K. Tsiolkovsky, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russian Ecological Academy and Editor-in-chief of the journal «Culture and time».


 * Also used scientific dictionaries and encyclopedias:
 * - Living Ethics / Russian philosophy: Dictionary (in Russian) / Edited by M. Maslin. - Moscow, «Terra Knizhnii klub»; «Respublica», 1999-656 p.
 * - Living Ethics / «Russian philosophy. Small encyclopedia ». - Moscow, «Nauka», 1995. - 624 p.
 * - Roerich Helena Ivanovna / Short philosophic dictionary / Edited by AP Alexeev. - Second edition, revised and supplemented. - Moscow, TK Velby, «Prospect» Publishing, 2004. The dictionary is prepared by group co-authors from sub-department of philosophy of humanist departments of Moscow State University named after MV Lomonosov.

Article Living Ethics is much more exact than article Agni Yoga reflects substantive provisions teaching Living Ethics, is fuller, scientific, encyclopedic, in it Nikolas Roerich's pictures are used.

I think that Wikipedia should be encyclopedic article, not distorting the facts, showing the view of the scientific community, not individual users of Wikipedia, written on the basis of the rules of Wikipedia. Suggest not to mislead readers facts wrong article Agni Yoga - to leave the Wikipedia article Living Ethics.

--Deodarvostok (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The above rant by Deodarvostok perfectly illustrates why his article ought to be deleted and he should be blocked from editing Agni Yoga. He's dogmatic, accusative, dismissive of the views of others, and negligent. For example, my "opinion" that Helena Roerich spoke highly of Annie Besant: There are three mentions of Besant in Volume II of The Letters of Helena Roerich, all of them favorable, one praising her as a "big spirit," and another praising her book Esoteric Christianity. So yes, it's a fact, Madam Roerich did speak highly of Besant. And clearly it isn't true that, "Helena Roerich appreciated only one early book of Bezant."

His criticism of "Historically speaking, Agni Yoga is one of several teachings that developed within the theosophical movement…" shows that he's as careless in reading as in writing. The first words, "Historically speaking," deliberately frame what follows in a historical context. The Agni Yoga teaching didn't emerge from a vacuum. There was an active theosophical movement in many parts of the world, and the Roerichs were part of it, as the facts I cite show. Many theosophical terms and concepts are found in Agni Yoga, and it alludes to events in the history of the Theosophical Society and the movement (which are two different things). These are historical facts. The question of whether the Agni Yoga teaching is "independent" or not is another matter entirely. The real issue here for Deodarvostok & Co. is their desire to expunge any connection of the "Living Ethics" with esotericism, including Theosophy.

But one "esoteric" dogma is at the core of Deodarvostok & Co.'s work: "Roerich were citizens of Russia. Svetoslav Roerich passed all the legacy of their parents in Russia, the International Center of the Roerich." The ICR, embodied in its oft photographed, oft cited Director (she's a "citizen of Russia" now that the USSR is over), is the True Lineage Holder of the True Transmission. We're dealing with a cult here, which explains the fanatic disregard for dialogue and facts. And a business--all the Russian Living Ethics site needs is an order form.

Until now I haven't been entangled in the organizational conflicts of the various Agni Yoga, Roerich, and Living Ethics groups, and I tried to write an article that didn't plug or dismiss any group. That's why I mentioned the Prophets, who I personally consider fraudulent, but who have played a major role in spreading information about Agni Yoga in the English-speaking world. People ask about them. Contrary to what Deodarvostok asserts, I have cited the few reliable English secondary sources I could find. Definitely, the article would be better if it did cite more and could be pared down by referring readers to more comprehensive discussions. Of course, Russian sources could be cited or, better, (well) translated where they shed an incisive insight. But I find it strange that an article which claims to represent the "scientific community" has several citations from Mme. Shaposhnikova--Honored Art Worker of RF, Academician of Russian Academy of Cosmonautics named after K. Tsiolkovsky, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Russian Ecological Academy and Editor-in-chief of the journal «Culture and time»--but fails to mention the renowned Roerich scholar Vladmir Rosov even once. Could it be that dogma or personal/organizational considerations have influenced the selection of the august representatives of the "scientific community"?

The fact that these lame criticisms are the best that Deodarvostok can come up with are one more reason to Keep the Agni Yoga article. --Asiaj (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to demonstrate ICR's modus operandi and extend on Asiaj's comments about Vladimir Rosov, here is another example of the type of writing that we see in the Living Ethics article: RESOLUTION of the International Scientific Public Conference “The 80th Anniversary of the N.K.Roerich Central Asiatic Expedition (1924-1928)”.  You will notice that much of the real estate on that Resolution page is taken up by enumerations of titles, just like in the Living Ethics article.  But if one actually manages to find the scant bits of substance in that sea of titles, he will run into the following: "At the same time the speakers mentioned that at present there become more frequent the facts of slanderous character, blackening N.K.Roerich’s activity and misrepresenting the aims of the expedition and “Living Ethics” Teaching (dissertations of V.A.Rosov and N.E.Samokhina (Moscow), I.V.Otroshchenko (Kiev)."  And the Scientific Conference resolves: 3. To solicit the Higher Examination Board of the Russian Federation to repeal the decision of confirmation of the doctoral theses of V.A.Rosov about  N.K.Roerich’s expeditions to Central Asia. How is that for impartiality!  And to top it off, the Conference resolves: 7. To recommend the Interregional Information- Analytical Centre to fill the Internet space with objective information about  the N.K.Roerich Central-Asiatic Expedition.  Clearly, Deodarvostok is following the same line of thinking in attempting to to fill the Internet space with objective information on Living Ethics.  "Objective" to ICR followers, of course, if no one else.

Unlike the Living Ethics article, the Agni Yoga article does represent an objective view of the topic, and therefore I request that Wikipedia keep the Agni Yoga article.

Mmratner (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * One last note before, hopefully, a decision is made to keep the Agni Yoga article. I looked at the six Agni Yoga and "Living Ethics" articles in other languages. The articles in French, German, and Finnish are all titled "Agni Yoga." As other editors have also pointed out, this is the name by which the teaching is generally known. The Russian, Bulgarian, and Czech articles are titled "Living Ethics." They are all obviously creations of the International Center of the Roerichs. The Bulgarian article mentions Madam Shaposhnikova at the beginning of the second paragraph. Four of the eight reference works cited at the end are by her, and two others are published by the ICR. Its content and that of the Czech article seem to be generally based on the "Selected aspects…" section of the Russian article. The Czech article's first editor is named Deodar. Both have links to the ICR site and sites connected with it. They do not have links to the Agni Yoga Society site, even though they do offer English links, such as one to Philosophy of Cosmic Reality by--Guess who?--Ludmila Shaposhinikova!

The French article is a translation of the English article before I revised it--the article wasn't very good. The German article is original and mentions religious and esoteric matters, which it appears the Bulgarian and Czech articles may not. The Finnish article is short and simple, and ends with links to the ICR, AYS, and an English work by Shaposhnikova.

What I find ironic is that the Bulgarian article only has three footnotes, and the rest (except the Russian) have zero. On the other hand, the English article, which I mainly wrote, has over one hundred citations, over a dozen of these to secondary or tertiary sources. Yet my article is the one targeted as having sourcing problems!

Deodarvostok has thought fit to tag the article and demand even more citations. In response I have added two footnotes and deleted mention of the AYS from the initial paragraph, moving the same info to the history section. I doubt that he'll be satisfied with this, but I wrote the article to satisfy people with interest in knowing basic facts about Agni Yoga and not to twist the material into a version agreeable to ICR or any other organization. I'm fine about people questioning and improving the article, but this guy has an agenda. For him "neutrality" means ICR's distorted version. He will continue making trouble unless he's blocked from editing. --Asiaj (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.