Talk:Guru/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

SATGURU MEANS --- ONE WHO TAKES TO TRUTH / SHOWS WHAT IS FALSE

This article should be adapted following the French example i.e. paragraphs original meaning, current meaning and cult problem What should be mentioned too is Anthony Storr's book 'A Study of Gurus' in which he argues that gurus suffer from a mild form of schizophrenia. Please help. I have limited time. Andries 21:17, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Not only Christians use this 'alternative definition'. But it is current usage by everybody. Some Christians use the word guru even for Jesus. Andries 08:20, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

User Mkweise says that satguru means teacher of truth but I think s/he is wrong. It means true guru i.e. the oppposite of false guru. Andries 19:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

User Mkweise says that all sects of Hinduism say that a living guru is necessary to attain Moksha. I think s/he is wrong. Do the followers of e.g. the late Shirdi Sai Baba say this? I don't thinks so. Besides how can s/he be so sure about this (It is written as if it is a fact)? Surely MKweise has not studies all sects of Hinduism. Andries 19:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Hello, MKweise, you wrote that sat guru means teacher of truth but I always thought that it meant true guru, i.e. the opposite of fraud guru. Do u have any references for your assertion?Andries 18:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the word satguru predates false gurus. One dictionary I have says that a satguru is "one who is able to lead others along the true spiritual path" - but I'm not too happy with that wording, since Hinduism acknowledges that other paths (even those of other religions) may also be true. Mkweise 23:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

False gurus are very old. One is even described in the Panchatantra, an old classic book from Kashmir.Andries 18:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I mean is that, arguably, false gurus are a phenomenon of Kali yuga. Mkweise 21:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

MKweise, look here is some evidence for my assertion that your translation of satguru is wrong http://www.sannyasin.com/s.html Scroll down do sat guru. Andries 19:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you're sure of the etymology, by all means change it. Mkweise

---

By the way, where is your evidence for your assertion that all sects of Hinduism say that a living guru is necessary. To be honest, I don't believe at all that you are right in this case. Besides, how can you state this as a fact. Have you studies ALL sects of Hindsuism? If not, how many have you studied? Andries 18:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The belief in the necessity of a guru is one of the defining traits of hinduism - see for example http://www.swaminarayan.org/faq/bapsgeneral.htm#1 or http://www.himalayanacademy.com/books/dws/lexicon/s.html (scroll down to "Satguru"). Mkweise 21:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise, thanks for the reference but I think the followers of Shirdi Sai Baba don't agree that one needs a living guru. Andries 21:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wrote all Hindu denominations; Sai Baba Sansthan is, by their own account, a universalistic movement. From http://www.shrisaibabasansthan.org/saibaba/saibaba_introduction.asp:

Devotees of all faiths find their meeting point in Sai and people from all communities and all walks of life are united by the great love and reverence Baba inspires in them. Baba had great regard for His Hindu devotees and their Gurus [...]

Mkweise 22:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mkweise, I believe that the Shirdi Sai Baba Sansthan is more than 50% a Hindu movement in spite of their propagandistic claims to be a universal movement. E.g. in the holy book of the Shirdi Sai Baba devotees the Sri Sai Satcharita, Sai Baba says that karma and reincarnation (typically Hindu) is real. I do admit that they have strong Muslim inluences though. Andries 18:46, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise, I have another objection to the sentence "All Hindu denominations hold that a personal relationship with a living guru, revered as the embodiment of God, is essential in seeking moksha." ISKCON followers would consider it blasphemy to rever a living guru as God, unless the guru happens to be Krishna or the Kalki avatar. Andries 18:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not as God, as the embodiment of God - not to be confused with incarnation, it means that God speaks through the guru. What it boils down to is similar to the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility.

Also, the problem our friends at ISKCON have with gurupuja is due to this mess.

Finally—and this will shock you!—Prabhupada during his lifetime made many statements calling his movement an independant religion that evolved from Hinduism, akin to Jainism and Buddhism.

He said: "The Krsna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion", and on another occasion wrote: "One should clearly understand that the Krsna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion." Caitanya, OTOH, did consider himself a Hindu—making the issue an excellent source of endless, pointless arguments.

MKweise, I can't seriously doubt that Hare Krisna's are Hindus regardless of the claim of Prabhupada. Even the word Catholic means universal but Catholicism is, of course, a form of Christianity. I don't uncritically accept the claims of a religious group. We continue to disagree strongly on the sentence that you included. Andries 20:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) isn't so much a specific religion as a set of religions that share a body of religious concepts and terminology. Such vertents may and do turn out to have _very_ significant differences in doctrine, yet mainly for pragmatic classification purposes are all generically called "Hinduism". If my understanding is correct, and considering that the IKSCON movement definitely uses and emphasizes the language and text of the Baghavad Gita (about as solidly Hinduistic a text as one is likely to find) it really becomes hard to find any reason to say that they are not Hinduists. They certainly have their own doctrine and identity, but them so do most religious movements. Luis Dantas 00:34, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Luis, I completely agree with your remarks about Hinduism and ISKCON.Andries 18:44, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mkweise, another example of a Hindu denomination that says that a living guru who is seen as the embodidment of God is necessary is Arya Samaj. I have now given 3 examples that prove that your assertion is wrong so I now take the liberty to change the disputed sentence. Andries 18:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Mkweise, with regards to guru again. Why did ur remove the section 'original and literal meaning? I found it very useful. I reverted it. Andries 21:29, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Didn't, I just removed the section heading above the intro paragraph since it's standard wikipedia practice to have at least one paragraph before any section headings. Mkweise 21:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

== I removed

==

I removed the footer {{msg:cults}} from the article since this article is not primarily about cults. Davodd 11:02, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)

Removal of .140 edits

I removed the edits by .140 that said that Guru is greater than God according the Svetara upanishad. I checked the upanishad and it does not say so. This ip is used to defend Elan Vital and to defend its FAQ against its critics [1]. Andries 15:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would much like to get integrated the Buddhist notion on "Guru" into this exelent article. --Mitrapa 17:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)Mitrapa

Added references provided by Zappaz in the talk page of one of Prem rawat articles regarding the "guru as greater than God" assertion as expressed in Hinduism and Sikhism. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:51, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Attraction by Gurus (??)

This section Guru#Attraction_by_gurus seems to me to be just a POV, but it is written as a fact. Either someone cares to re-write it in NPOV voice and provide references, or it should be deleted from the article. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:32, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, you are right. Most comes from Storr's book and I will give references for it, or provide examples without offering general conclusions. What assertions do you find doubtful in particular? Andries 19:36, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The wole sentence as follows: ≈ jossi ≈ 22:04, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

There are several reasons why people in Western cultures are attracted by gurus. The most common is that people look for the meaning of life and are disillusioned in traditional religions. Gurus provide answers to the meaning of life, often free from the intellectualism of philosophy. Other people who have traditional beliefs seek to intensify their religious life and see a guru who can help her or him with this. Gurus offer a belief system that offers fulfillment and purpose and sometimes promises of a peaceful happy life. Many gurus claim that they can bring people closer to God, facilitate enlightenment, moksha, or nirvana, or can help people to achieve good karma and a correspondingly better next incarnation.

Literal meaning of the term "Guru"

I can see that there are discrepancies of understanding in regard of the meaning of the word "guru". I offer this from the Darmayoga.org dictionary [2]:

Guru: (lit., one who leads a seeker from darkness to light – Gu, Darkness; ru, light.) A master; teacher. Literally, 'Gu'= Darkness or ignorance. 'Ru'= Illumination. Guru is therefore the spiritual Master who initiates and guides a seeker across the sea of Separation to the shore of Union and therefore, liberation. Guru is not simply the psycho/physical human form - the Model. Guru is principally the function of Self Revelation through the power of grace. Direct and continuous contact with the Guru function within ourselves is both the practice and the goal of the Guru/Disciple relationship. For the seeker who understands this, there is yet an intoxication, an inexpressible sweetness and desire to be close to one who perfectly embodies the Guru principle.

There is also a prayer by Ram das as follows:

Heal me, lead me,

Love me, guide me

Guru Guru wahe Guru

(Indescribable wisdom, Guru Ram

Das guides me from darkness to light)

Guru Ram Das Guru

(Gu: darkness or ignorance)

(Ru: light or knowledge)

And finally, quoting from an article from Kathleen Hunt in Jai! magazine (from the Samadi yoga website, that includes a good explanation of Aarti as well)

In the practice of yoga we are given the tools with which to beautify our mental state. The Guru in all aspects shines the light into the darkness (Gu=darkness, Ru=light). We learn to bring all our Love into our living. We surround the challenge with the ‘nacre’ or reflected light of the Divine. We see our obstacles as stepping stones. What before seemed to be randomly ‘inflicted’ on us, we now begin to see as our own creation, a lesson we asked for at some time in the recent or distant past. [3]

--Zappaz 16:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i think there are different opinions in the wide wide world of indian religion, so sikhs(and also sant mat) claim this use of guru for them, see Guru Grant Sahib, others translate ru as remover ( this was the first version in this article), please see Guru and Teacher, there is no evidence that the explanation of gu means darkness and ru means light is valid all over india. and there is no way to derive it from hindi as well. so the meanings of the syllables may happened to be added more in a poetic way, like gu means greater and ru means god ;-) ; i would suggest to present all meanings that appear on this term and explain where they come from instead of scratching for example the "remover" in favor of the by prem rawat prefered "light". this was some kind of an encyclopedia, wasn't it? thomas

I don't think that you are fair in your assessment of Zappaz contributions. Clearly Darma yoga.org, and Samadi .org agree with that definition of gu -ru, and they have nothing to do with Skikhism or Sant mat tradition or Maharaji. In any case, you are most welcome to present an additional interpretation of the term, with the references you provide.≈ jossi ≈ 18:41, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, gurus say that they can lead you from light to darkness. That is an advertisement. A reliable reference can only be a scholarly dictionary. Andries 19:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andries, this has nothing to do with "advertisement". The root words Gu and Ru in Sanskrit mean light and the opposite of light respectively. And the term "GuRu" means teacher or spiritual guide. References are provided above (many articles in WP are referenced to online resoures as the ones I provided, so I do not know what your point is.) Regardless, can you explain why is there such contention about this?--Zappaz 19:53, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hey look down and check the dictionaries please, i thought we wanted to be accurate. there is no doubt that on religious oriented websites, their dictionaries have that explanation. But they do not seem to be scientific anyway, they sure have their meaning but i thought you'd be happy to have some serious information about that. what's the matter? maybe LordSuryaofShropshire can clarify that.thomas

I am no sanskrit scholar, but I understand that you need to have the correct transliteration of the root terms gu and ru, otherwise these dictionaries are useless. See [4]. Maybe someone with access to a good dictionary can help here. Mitrapa, could you tell us the name and edition of your Sanskrit dictionary? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:44, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

in the dictionary in colougn Sanskrit-English Lexicon you can enter the english term the same way, feel free to try "darkness" and light". i asked dant again and he is willing to ask some authorities he knows about that, if we want.thomas

FYI, the Advayataraka Upanishad (14Ð18), defines guru as dispeller of darkness. --Zappaz 23:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A western reference is Dr. Georg Feuerstein, Ph.D. author ofThe Yoga Tradition (ISBN-1890772186). Feurstein assserts in an article named "Understanding the Guru" that:

... Tradition explains the term guru as being composed of the two syllables gu and ru; the former is taken to represent darkness, while the latter is said to stand for removal. Thus the guru is a dispeller of spiritual darkness, that is, he or she restores sight to those who are blind to their true nature, the higher Self. --Zappaz 23:51, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, thanks but what does this mean for the article? I mean the literal meaning from scholarly dictionaries say that it comes from heavy. That should be the only acceptable reference for the literal meaning. The article already says that the other literal meaning of dispeller of darkness is claimed in Hindu scriptures. Andries 23:58, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Andries, you maybe missed this: the Advayataraka Upanishad, defines guru as dispeller of darkness, specifically by referring to the root words 'gu' and 'ru'. I added this to the definition --Zappaz 00:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Advayataraka Upanishad is to be refered often as a source to that. but that does not prove that these interpretations derive from their sanskrit meaning. you can find here an example that explains gu as the dispeller and ru as the darkness using the Advayataraka Upanishad as reference, so what? and here the same "Etymologically, the term Guru means one who gives light by eradicating the darkness of ignorance. According to the philosophical Hindu text Advayataraka Upanishad (14Ð18), Guru means ‘dispeller (gu) of darkness (ru)." at [5]. We have different meanings to the syllables gu = dispeller, and ru = darkness. others say gu = darkness , ru = dispeller and then we have gu = darkness and ru = light(BTW nobody claims that ru = light in Advayataraka Upanishad). please, think about it .thomas

so everbody thinks everything is ok? i don't; the sentence Another etymology claimed in Hindu scriptures is that of dispeller of darkness (wherein darkness is seen as avidya, lack of knowledge both spiritual and intellectual), 'gu' meaning darkness, and 'ru' meaning light (the power that disperses the darkness of ignorance.), implies that Advayataraka Upanishad says that ru means light which it does not. Please use another source for this allegation or i will do it myself. and a bit of research should be done about the indian habit of giving meanings to sanskrit syllables that do not at least seem to derive from sanskrit; real experts for apocryph and historic scriptures are asked.thomas

I do not know understand what is disputed here. Plenty of evidence has been provided for this assertion, much more than for any other item in this article :

• Advayataraka Upanishads
• A Ram Das prayer
• Several websites in which they assert same meaning to these syllables

The assertion of an ethimology related to guru as "dispeller of darkness of ignorance" (avidya) is absolutely correct. If you disagree, please explain why you consider all these references invalid.

You seem to have a lack of understanding about symbolism in sanskrit. Dispelling darkness, for example, can ony be done by shining light. In this case it is the light of vidya. Avidya <=>Vidya; darkness <=> light; ignorance<=>knowledge. That is what the Advayataraka Upanishads refers to.

--Zappaz 20:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Take the ram das prayer as evidence for ru means light, for heaven's sake or the other websites but not the upanishad, because that is not was is written there in this upanishad, it is not accurate. i read several translations and none says light, all say dispeller. your maybe logical conclusion that dispeller must be light is no evidence by no means. you may also forget that even the term darkness is used as a metapher for ignorance, did you ever consider that removing ignorance needs more than to switch the torch, but needs personal action, dispelling, which is done by the guru. that is what stands there and nothing else. if you want to publish this upanishad as a source of giving the syllable ru the meaning of light, i expect a bit more from you than just playing with metaphers.i do not know what degree you have in sanskrit, if you have one, but i will definitely ask somebody who has. This seems to be simply to amateurish, maybe from both our sidesThomas h 21:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, I have no problem with the current version of the article on the literal meaning of the word guru, though personally I consider the evidence in the website flimsy. Andries 20:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am getting confused about the nature of this "dispute". Clearly there is plenty of evidence to support the current text. I have spent way too much time on this one already. Unless someone can come up with a better text given the substantial references provided, please lets put this one to bed. Thanks. --Zappaz 21:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

With Another etymology claimed in Hindu scriptures is that of dispeller of darkness (wherein darkness is seen as avidya, lack of knowledge both spiritual and intellectual), 'gu' meaning darkness, and 'ru' meaning dispeller as expressed in the Advayataraka Upanishads i will be fine. if ru shall be light combine it with it's sources directly, please. It would be also interesting how this meanings came to live, probably more through religious emphasis than common evolution of language. that would explain the several meanings and even the switching of the meaning ru and gu as i have found. sleep over it. good night.Thomas h 22:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let us not make an unnatural distinction between Western culture and Hinduism

I changed back the title of a subsection that Jossi had changed. As if people in India, both gurus, their follower and the critics of gurus differ so much in the Western countries from those in India. I do not believe it. That is an artificial, unnatural distinction that I believe is not based in facts. Quite a lot of people here in Amsterdam follow a guru. Andries 23:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Guru.

I took a look in the sanskrit dictionary and actually it do say that Gu = Darkness and Ru = Light. And GuRu = Teacher. --Mitrapa 18:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)Mitrapa

Thanks Mitrapa. I found the same.

An interesting fact: in the Old testament in Hebrew, they call Jesus "moreh". That word is from the root "roeh" (the one that sees), and its meaning is "the one that can show". The common translations to English are "teacher" or "master". Same here, "guru" many have special meanings when looked at from a linguistic viewpoint, but the meaning is one of "teacher" or "master". --Zappaz 19:23, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i have the upanishads at my home(in german), but for sanskrit translations i prefer to use a scientific dictionary that you can access online on Sanskrit-English Lexicon there i found no trace of that meanings, unfortunately.thomas

i asked dant from forum8 who studied sanskrit, he says there is no way to this interpretation, he once, as a premie presented this meaning to his professors and it was really emberassing. Here is another on line dictionary another online dictionary, still no trace, so any comments? thomas

Devotees' views on Guru and God

I disagree with your edit, Andries. In all sects the Guru is also a disciple, due to the disciplic succession or parampara. Thus, the assertion that only in a specific sect guru and devotee are servants of God, is incorrect. That assertion applies to all sects. I will correct your edit to reflect this.--Zappaz 20:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, hmmm, you may be right. It may be inaccurately formulated. And sorry for forgetting my edit summary. But what should be written down is that for many sects the phrase "guru is greater than God" is heterodox. Andries 20:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, you did not need to delete the whole sentence. The phrase "guru is greater than God" is only used in some sects of Hinduism. In many sects this is a crazy statement, which the article should reflect. Andries

Many sects? That may be interesting. I am moslty familiar with sects of Hinduism that feature gurus and a disciplic succession. It will be good to quantify the "many" in your assertion. Till then I have changed the text to reflect the singularity of that specific sect (that I have to admit I know nothing about it). I have not deleted your sentence: it is at the end of the section. --Zappaz 21:09, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

okay, I missed that Andries 21:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the Gaudiya website, I could not find any support about your assertion. But I found this:

In his Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, Rupa Gosvami has divided the various practices of bhakti in sixty-four categories, beginning with accepting a spiritual teacher (guru), receiving initiation and instructions from him, serving him, living a life following in the footsteps of the saints, and inquiring about matters of worship (bhajana). An extensive discourse on this matter is not in place in this context, so we shall only focus on five of them, which were declared as the most important by Sri Caitanya.

This seems to mean that guru in that tradition is pretty similar than in other sects (that by the way it is has an extensive paramara starting with Sri Krishna himself...). Read also their theology.. quite fascinating: http://www.gaudiya.com/index.php?topic=theology Can you point me to the right direction to find a reference to your assertion about this sect?--Zappaz 21:20, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will try but I cannot proof the absence of something. I know Gaudiya Vaishnavism pretty well and I never came across something outrageous as "Guru is greater than God." Andries 21:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note that the "guru is greater than God" is a coloquism used in India. The quotations from Kabir and Brahmanand talk about it in a more explicit and interesting manner from which that coloquism is derived. You made an assertion that seemed to be well researched and substantiated, but if you do not have a reference for that assertion, please delete it or explain where it is coming from. Thanks. --Zappaz 21:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edits by PGreenfinch

We had a good, NPOV article. Your edits deleted useful information and made it to be based on a negative POV and negative connotation of the term. I have reverted these edits. Next time you make such a drastic edit, please give your rational in this page. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The rationale is that the article was NPOV by omission. You can change the wordings but in no case censor some meanings of the word guru which were skipped. Your suppression is vandalism. --Pgreenfinch 08:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pgreenfinch's version implies that the Western usage, when applied to a religious/spiritual context, always carries a negative connotation, which is untrue.

Additionally, by making a contentious change and then reverting an edit back to his change, he is deliberately trying to start an edit war. --Goethean 19:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pgreenfinch, you are most welcome to insert additional meanings of the word Guru. Just do it without deleting important information from the article. You could add your data to Guru#Additional_meanings_in_contemporary_western_usage, or if you want, removed the redirect from Guruism and expand on that concept there. Thanks. I will give you some time to do it yourself, otherwise I will do that myself. --≈ jossi ≈ 22:26, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The edit does not make sense. There is already text that refers to the use of the term guru within a western context. It reads:

The original meaning has evolved to a broader one. In more recent usage of the word guru, it means anyone who propagates a philosophical or religious belief system independent of an established school of philosophy or religion and attracts and accepts followers because of this.

I will revert most of the edits, and leave only the new text about "guruism" with some much needed NPOVing, as follows:

That label has been generalized and extended to any leader seeking to impose obedience to a secular, religious organization or school of thought, or to promote a belief system based on his personal influence.

--Zappaz 22:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You edit as you want, but what you cannot take out is the meaning that refers to domination or fraud, some countries even have laws about such things. Why didn't you leave it but gave your own wording ? I will have to reinclude it, and then you are free to word it in another way. --Pgreenfinch 10:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, but the burden is on you to provide supporting material for such statement ... You cannot say "Legislation in some countries..." You need to specify which legislations and which countries, otherwise it is weasel speech and does not provide any useful information to the reader. --Zappaz 21:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

France (loi About-Picard sur les mouvements sectaires, in 2001), Germany, Belgium, among others. As for accusing me of weasel speech, it doesn't honor you. Well, your problem. --Pgreenfinch 22:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just pointed to you that "weasel speech" in the context of Wikipedia articles is not well received. Please Read Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms. Regarding the About-Picard law, that law is fully discussed in Cult#The_About-Picard_law. I do not recall any specific information about "Guru" in the About-Piccard law [6]. Your text [sic] protection against people and organizations using methods of proselytism that endanger personal freedom. is not anywaere in the wording of that Law and it is irrelevant to this article, unless you associate it with a specific case related to the term "guru". Otherwise it will need to be removed for lack of relevance in this article. --Zappaz 00:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you are joking to take your sources about that law in ...another wikipedia article. This is called self reference, or am I wrong? But as I appreciate your efforts, and I see that, little by little, you start to see that from the beginning there was ground for the additions I made, although they were not to the taste of some that don't like too much digging into realities, you are welcome to bring your own contribution, for the full information of the readers, by replacing "methods" by "techniques" and adding the bit about "personal judgement" to my wording. Thanks for your good cooperation and will to help in this subject where information should be complete. Then we will not be fully out of the workshop, as will come the question to give a clear structure to this article, which presentation is a bit messy and where important things are not well highlighted, as if they were shameful and better kept in the background where their image fuse with the wallpaper. I can help, of course, but would it be appreciated by some who would prefer to keep some confusion? Maybe you would be better than me to bring that finishing touch, as you seem to have go-between talents, even if sometimes you do it a bit, let us say, harshly. --Pgreenfinch 08:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "self-reference" is not really valid. Wikipedia articles are edited by a large community of editors (one of the largest collabs efforts in human history!), and I know that given time, each WP article will tend to reach a status of "excellent". The About-Picard law text in WP (some of which is, ahem, mine), was written with the collaboration of many people and it is quite good IMO (you can read the law itself and commentaries both pro and con and you will realize that the summary in WP is pretty accurate, balanced and NPOV). Regarding your other comments, yes I agree that I may seem a bit "harsh", although I would call that "being bold while editing". Concerning your remarks about structure, I believe the current structure is pretty good. After all, there are more people in the world in which "Guru" carries a meaning of respect, than people in the Western world that for lack of appreciating cultural differences, believe Gurus to be nefarious. After all, this is a world encyclopedia. Lastly, and continuing with being bold (or harsh) I will work on the last sentence regarding Picard. --Zappaz 17:59, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pgreenfinch's latest edit is egregious, gratuitous, makes the sentence awkward and should be reverted. --Goethean 21:31, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The sentence might be akward but yours was NPOV. The word "argue" cannot be used with an hypothesis like the one you stated. In such case you should have written "pretend that" or "make the hypothesis that" instead of "argue that". --Pgreenfinch 22:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

etymology

guru does not mean spiritual master. that is a fabrication of certain gaudiya vaishnav groups who try to get western disciples to obey them blindly, most notably Iskcon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oookrsna (talk • contribs) 07:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You offer no references and I'm not surprised. See Monier-Williams, A Sanskrit-English Dictionary, OUP, 1899. Part of the entry for guru reads: venerable , respectable ; m. any venerable or respectable person (father , mother , or any relative older than one's self) Gobh. SaknakhGr2. Mn. &c. ; a spiritual parent or preceptor (from whom a youth receives the initiatory Mantra or prayer , who instructs him in the Sastras and conducts the necessary ceremonies up to that of investiture which is performed by the Acarya Yajn. i , 34) RPrat. AsavGr2. Pa1rGr2. Mn. &c. ; the chief of (gen. or in comp.) Ca1n2. Ragh. ii , 68 ; (with S3a1ktas) author of a Mantra ; `" preceptor of the gods "' , Br2ihaspati Mn.xi There are half a dozen references in that extract alone. Could you please provide references supporting your statement? AbelBergaigne (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The usage of guru in Buddhism

I need a credible source which specifically states that the word "guru" is used commonly in Buddhism. --Nosedown (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be completely rewritten

This article needs to be completely rewritten. It's not just a problem of style. There's an overall lack of conceptual clarity. The article displays a vague and confused understanding of the topic. It's a jumble and mishmash of sources. It lacks cohesion and an analytically lucid overall organization. Sections, paragraphs, and sentences follow each other in an irrational and confusing way. Many of the sentences are so vague and imprecise as to be nonsensical. There are problems with factual accuracy and intelligibility throughout. Wikixosa (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2009

Some issues can be improved, but a "confused understanding of the topic" and "mishmash of sources" and "lack cohesion" are to a large extent due to the subject matter. I do not think that the issues that I listed can be improved greatly without removing significant information/viewpoints. Andries (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to be that various good sources are regularly deleted by Wiki Admins as being not notable and biased. Each time there is a clean-up almost completely unreferenced contents remains. The problem is that those sources which are notable on this topic are not notable also in the West. I have already tried to prepare a reorganization, but all sourced material was deleted before that. You can't write about something, without having sourced material. The other thing is that Guru article would have to be protected. It is a very controversial topic with many people adding their own views, making it impossible to manage the contents by the minority. Every single group of people having a Guru will try to add their teaching to the article. This is not wrong. The problem is to organize it properly and keep it organized. Atmapuri (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

"The problem is that those sources which are notable on this topic are not notable also in the West." - I'm sorry, but i'm wondering if i understood this correctly. Does this mean that non-Western sources are not notable to Wikipedia in general? That would mean that any sense of bias is gone from this project, if the whole admin-clique disaster wasn't bad enough. ChromeBallz (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Guru Brahma

In some traditions, the Guru Brahma sloka is followed by the following: dhyan moolam guru moorti pooja moolam guru padam mantra moolam guru wakyam moksha moolam guru kripa Akhandmandlakaram vyaptam yen charaacharam, tad padam darshitam yen ,tasmai shri guruve namah twam ev mata cha pita twam ev, twam ev bandhuscha sakha twam ev , twam vidya darvidam twam ev, twam ev sarvam mam dev dev, Brahma nandam param sukhdam kevlam gyan murtim, dwandaatitam gagan sadrasham tasya masya di lakshyam, ekam nityam vimal machlam sarvdikshakshibhutam, bhavatitam trigunrahitam sad gurum tam namami! I can only attempt a feeble translation but if someone else is up to it, I would request them to go ahead. Btw, I'd like to thank the anon who brought this to my notice by editing my user page! --Gurubrahma (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

guru sloka

gurur brahma sloka's writer is not Sankaracharya,becouse this sloka from Gurugeetafrom skanthapurana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannan843 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Attributes of guru

I'm having trouble finding the "five signs of satguru" in the Upanishads. E.g. a search for समृद्धि = "abundance" सदगुरू = "satguru" उपनिषद् = "upanishad" only gives two results. English results tend to be just quoting this page. There are a couple of sites that quote contemporary gurus giving this list with different Sanskrit romanization and slightly different translations. Anyone know the source for sure? --Mujokan (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about notability of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda in Hinduism

Reliable sources on Vedanta and Advaita can only include those, who are considered an authority on the subject by those who actually study and follow this teachings. Within Hinduism, the Vedanta and Advaita are followed by the seven Akharas established by Adi Shankaracharya. The Mahanirvani Akhara is considered one of the major ones. If you read the biography of the author for which you dispute source reliability and notability, you will notice that he holds the highest title of Mahamandaleshwar in Hindusim as the member of Mahanirvani Akhara. His view is not the view of one yogi, but shared by all followers of Adi Shankaracharya. The Acharya of Panchayati Mahanirvani Akhara said during the Kumbha Mela 2010 in Haridwar that: "... there are many stars among Mahamandaleshwars of Vedanta but among them the very incredible star is Swami Maheshwarananda..." and other member of the governing body said "... Swami Vivekanada also went abroad, but the work of Swami Maheshwarananda is unexcelled... ". The 15min video from Haridwar recorded in Feb 2010 can be seen here.

That level of detail should not be in the lead to a general article titled "guru". It should be included in the hinduism section or on other more indepth sections. Also religious speeches shouldn't be considered reliable sources for definitions and if this person is considered by his followers to be a guru its not okay to include his opinion on the lead.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I dont know how much you know about Hindusim. It is also called a living religion. This means that what is true is not a question of history or books, but what is the current view of the Gurus living today, which are considerd living deities or personal God with direct contact to God. It is not possible to reduce the view of one of the highest authorithies in Hindusim to "be the view of the one considered by Guru by his followers". Hinduism similarly to Catholic church also has an organizational structure. I think it is not fair to completely dismiss its existence. If the Pope has something to say, that is also not considered marginal. I think it is fair that we leave it open for discussion what is considered a deep enough level of detail. Atmapuri (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, and as Hinduism confirms, Hinduism is not a monolithic religion with a strict organizational structure. Furthermore I think equating this fellow to the pope is a stretch. But even so, the leader of one religious denomination of Christianity, e.g. the pope, would not have his personal opinion or religious view inserted into the lead of an article like Jesus. I don't think it should be in the lead for a few reasons:

1. His opinion is not so life shattering that it supersedes the opinions of Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist leaders of the past couple thousand years.
2. For everything you listed about how notable he is, from his wikipedia page it looks like he peddles yoga lessons
3. He is obviously not notable enough for inclusion on the Hinduism main page (not a reason in and of itself but shows how unnotable he is)

--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hinduism values the words of a living true master higher than the Vedas (Scriptures). Even though it is true that Hinduism does not have a monolithic organizational structure, it does have one and some of the pillars are very old and very valued. One of the most valued pillars of organizational structure which is present in Hinduism are those founded by Adi Guru Shankaracharya. If you would follow the links in my previous reply that explain the position of Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda in the organizationl structure of Hinduism, you would be able to understand this deeper. We should however concentrate on the specific two additions for which I believe belong in the lede of the article about the meaning of the Guru in Hinduism. One addition cites Guru Nanak. This citing was made by Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda in the chapter which discusses the role and meaning of the Guru. Guru Nanak was Sikh, which is a branch of Hinduism. It has been widely disputed on this and other pages and also in the west in general, if Guru is required to reach self realization or not. Well, here we have a definite reference from a notable person citing the past and confirming in the presence. I think this is a strong enough argument to be included in the lede of the Guru article. The other sentence describes in what way and how is Guru understood to be a deity in Hinduism and have that relates to God and to the role of the teacher. If you have any better reference than what was posted, I am most willing to accept it.Atmapuri (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You are inflating this person's importance in the Hindu religion, because from the evidence you've presented so far he is not that notable.

We should however concentrate on the specific two additions for which I believe belong in the lede of the article about the meaning of the Guru in Hinduism.

This is the fundamental problem here. you are talking about the meaning of "guru" to your branch of Hinduism but other religions don't have the same definition as you. Guru Nanak was a Sikh Guru which is fundamentally different from the definition that this person believes in. Sikhism is a completely separate religion.

It has been widely disputed on this and other pages and also in the west in general, if Guru is required to reach self realization or not.

This type of indepth discussion does not belong in the lead it belongs in the rest of the article. Once again the lead should be a general definition and not something specific to Hinduism--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

About yoga lessons. Yoga is the method and path through which the self realization can be achieved. What kind of a Guru which would be wanting to help you achieve self realization would not teach Yoga? Notice that all his books are available for free on internet. He is not included on the Hinduism main page, because he was never suggested to be included. Most valued people present on that page, are dead and to add a living person would be almost a precedan. Atmapuri (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are trying to insert your personal beliefs into the article. The vast majority of people don't care about yoga or believe it has religious properties. I think the fact that he is not on that page shows how unnotable he really is--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also your entire edit history revolves around inserting Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda into articles. Your contributions page is basically a collection of edit summaries that say "restoring relevant content" and posting that video (Special:Contributions/Atmapuri). I'm posting a warning to your talk page.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The edit history that you saw is subject of the dispute with user Wikidas, which has taken aim at removing the references about Paramhans Swami Maheswharananda from articles. He is trailing my edits and so I had to trail his. This is not a sign of not following the wiki rules. That "video" was posted only to the talk page of the Wikidas and on this page. Besides I dont know what this comments have to do with "notable person" and "reliable source". Will you post a warning on Wikidas page as well? He is clearly in violation of several points about Wiki behaviour, not to mention the basic ethics. Atmapuri (talk) 12:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that you are inserting books by this person into every conceivable article which lowers the quality of wikipedia.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but I believe I inserted only the most relevant content which I believe adds to the quality of wikipedia considerably. Every author can be added simply for the sake of the reference or for the sake to make an actual quality and meaningfull contribution to the Wikipedia. His books are very thick and what was inserted is a small drop in the ocean. Blindly deleting a single author from articles regardless of what the content may be I think does have a fairly detremental effect on the quality of Wikipeda. Note that many references deleted by Wikidas have persisted on Wikipedia for more than 2 years, before he decided to take matters in his own hands. Atmapuri (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The person you keep quoting is not the end all be all source for everything. this is simply an attempt at advertising.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, that may be your personal perception, but we dont agree.Atmapuri (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• More importantly, you'll need to find sources that say this person's view is actually reliable and important enough for it to be quoted here. Quite simple as that. —SpacemanSpiff 12:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Notable scandals and controversies

Perhaps for balance we should have a Notable achievements and good works section? Rumiton (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Developer guru

I missing description of "Developer guru".

Basicly it is guy which is much better then another developers. Usualy make miracles (like coding really fast, do for waiting what another say "imposible" etc.) 193.179.131.6 (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of devotee-published sources

I have removed the reference to Kalchuri, Meher Prabhu. For discussion, see RS/N and this Talk page. Simon Kidd (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the RSN page you link to that gives you the right to remove referenced text. You are removing valid information from articles acting against consensus. Hoverfish Talk 20:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I linked to two pages. Fifelfoo said on his Talk page: "I'd suggest editing out OR and inappropriately sourced content, citing policy and appropriate discussions, and discussing at length on the talk page." The relevant policy/guideline says that an article "must be based upon reliable third-party sources, and meets this requirement if [among other things, it] is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials". Kalchuri fails this test, since he is published by an organisation affiliated with the subject. Simon Kidd (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't unilaterally decide that Lord Meher is not a reliable source. You can't unilaterally decide that it is devotional and not a reliable biography. What is "Devotional"? and who decides. Not You, Mr Kidd. Hoverfish Talk 16:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead definition

The definition in the lead seems to tell us more about the rather bad use of the term in the USA than anything. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the most important aspects of the article. As it is, I see an undue weight problem in that section. Hoverfish Talk 09:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Devotee Page

Hi wikieditors, does anyone else think that an article about devotees may be a good article for wikipedia? We have the guru page but not the devotee page. It somehow seems unbalanced. When one types in devotee one gets redirected to a disambiguation page for devotion, but none of the potential pages are about the devotee in the sense that Vivekanada, for example, was a devotee of Ramakrishna. There is Hindu_devotional_movements, but it's not exactly what I am thinking of. So... just putting this idea out there if anyone wants to take it up the baton. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! ? Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2015 cleanup

This article had many sentences and paragraphs without source, some with cite pending tags for a while. I have added sources in a few cases, but deleted all WP:OR. If someone can find reliable sources for the deleted text, please add it back with the WP:V sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes to lead

@Sérgio Itigo: The lead should summarize the main article, and mentioning that the Guru concept is also found in Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism is WP:DUE in the lead. Why are you deleting it from the lead? Similarly, I tried to verify the non-English source you added, but it is WP:PRIMARY and you seem to be interpreting the primary source, which is not ok. If you have a secondary source for the interpretation, please provide. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I only supplemented a sudden description not to cause misunderstanding. Buddhism uses ten kinds of honorific titles, but there is not guru there. The words guru seem to be rarely used in Esoteric Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, but it was affected by Hinduism. The description is too sudden and unidentified in context. I removed it. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sérgio Itigo: Do you have a source for "seem to be rarely used in Jainism and Sikhism"? Per WP:BRD, please accept previously stable content, wait till a consensus is reached. Guru is a well recognized and revered concept in Sikhism, see Guru Nanak, Guru Gobind Singh and others. Similarly Guru is well supported in the main article's Jainism section. If your objection is simply for Buddhism, then I am removing it for now, till more support is offered in the main article. But if reliable sources are found, we need to add it back in per wikipedia content policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Sérgio Itigo: I intend to add "the Guru concept is also found in Vajrayana Buddhism" to the lead shortly. Two reliable scholarly sources support this, and these sources are now in the main article, Buddhism section. I give you time to offer reasons, with reliable sources, as to why this should not be done. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Traditional Buddhism does not have the tradition of Guru. I checked use of the term "teacher" in Buddhism at a library today, teachers in Buddhism are as follows;

• Great teacher (大師): vādināṃ-varah / āraya
• Dharma teacher (法師): dharma-bhāṇaka / dharma-kathika
• Leading teacher (導師): nara-nāyaka / loka-nāyaka / sārthera-vāha / daiśika
• Non-Buddhist honor teacher (尊師): परिवार (not clear a Sanskrit)
• Non-Buddhist teacher (師): upādhyāya

I think that guru is found as a non-Buddhist teacher in Sanskrit Buddhism texts. It had better to be described from when Jainism and Vajrayana imported the word guru as an own teacher here. And I think, all denominations of Tibetan Buddhism had abolished fanatic and stupid the "Vajrayana of the Secret Community" long time ago or did not it from the first. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC).

added the part of bold italic. --Sérgio Itigo (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The lead now states Vajrayana Buddhism. Wikipedia is not the place to call any group "fanatic or stupid", or suppress information about them. Since you are claiming, "Tibetan Buddhism abolished Vajrayana", you need to provide recent scholarly source(s) with page number that can verify that conclusion. If you do, we can add a summary from them as well. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I described it with "Vajrayana of the Secret Community", not "Vajrayana". I wanted to only say that "Vajrayana of the Secret Community" caused fanatic and stupid acts. "Vajrayana of the Secret Community" means "Mount a Diamond Head (or Mount Tel Megiddo) of the Armageddon meeting" in Esoteric Christianity or Jewish mysticism. The mad-maximum Armageddon meeting of Aum Shinrikyo cult decided to provide a helicopter for spraying the ultimate poison-gas weapon "sarin". They held the most important Armageddon meeting in their limousine car. Therefore, it is known as the "Limousine meeting" widely in Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sérgio Itigo (talk • contribs) 17:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

unsourced and Dutch language content

@WebCite: why is this unsourced text appropriate? why is it due? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924020854/http://www.gayathrimanthra.com/contents/documents/Vedic-related/Advayataraka_Upanishad.pdf to http://www.gayathrimanthra.com/contents/documents/Vedic-related/Advayataraka_Upanishad.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924105148/http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=2260&english=t&id=157684 to http://www.sridasam.org/dasam?Action=Page&p=2260&english=t&id=157684
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050205055250/http://www.yrec.info/contentid-23.html to http://www.yrec.info/contentid-23.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

"Aiya" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aiya and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 27#Aiya until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

"Spiritual counsellor (south Asia)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Spiritual counsellor (south Asia) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 27#Spiritual counsellor (south Asia) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)