Talk:Guru/Archive 2

message: The biblio you added are all Western criticism of Gurus. I would expect that references and biblio are more balanced toward the whole article rather than the narrow Western view of Gurus. After all, the Western usage section of the article is only apprx 20% of the whole article.  After all the number of people that believe in Gurus (such as Hindus and Sikhs) will be greately offended by this approach.
I have no problems with you adding these, but we will need to add bibliography for the remaining 80% of the article to maintain NPOV.
An alternative would be to create a separate article about "Guruism" in which you and others can expand the criticism of Gurus. --Zappaz 01:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree. The only really non-Eastern book is the one by Storr though he treats Bhagwan too. The psychiater Deutsch (literally) treats Jeff/Baba, who is in turn a follower of the Hindu guru SSB. Mary Garden was a follower of a string of Hindu gurus. Van der Lans points out the dangers of lack of personal contact when compared to traditional gurus. Kramer and Alstadt have a very long essay that could apply both to Hindu gurus as well as their Western equivalents. I have already written hereabove that I think that the distinction between Hindu and Western gurus is artificial and should go. There is too much overlap e.g. Andrew Cohen. Ram Dass, and Adi Da are not from India but learned from Hindu teachers, Bhagwan is from India but is not a Hindu guru. If there is a distinction to be made, then I find Kranenborg's three types more useful than Hindu versus non-Hindu.  Andries 02:17, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not understand what I meant. All these books are written by Westerners. This article relates to "Guru" from a much wider perspective than the one offered by Westerm sociologists. I am sure that you can appreciate that for Hindus, Sikhs and Budhists, the guru is a respected person and a tradition that goes back for 1,000's of years. In fact, when Western civilization was still in the dark ages, gurus in the East were a source of light and wisdom. Your approach to this article show a common bias of Western culture, that considers anything "different" such as the concept of guru as something to be feared and criticized. This is Wikipedia, an encylclopedia that respects diversity and respects diverse viepoints. In regard to this article, you must respect the millions of people to which "guru" represents a source of inspiration and great respect. -- Zappaz 02:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia should use the most authorative sources regardless from the question whether they where written by Westerners or Indians. And please, when answering me, you seem to forget my background of intense involvement with and respect for a Hindu guru during nine years.  Andries 03:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Hagiographic  or non-scholarly  books about individual gurus should not be listed in the bibliography.  Andries 03:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Zappaz, what is the difference between the critical books about gurus by the Indians Basava Premanand, Abraham Kovoor and western critics? I think the distinction is very artificial.  Andries 02:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both these authors focused on debunking false gurus in modern India. What I am talking about is the tradition of gurus as teachers. --Zappaz 02:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and I agree. That is why I propose to drop the artificial distinction between Hindu and non-Hindu gurus but instead follow Kranenborg's three types, spiritual advisors (traditional), enlightened master, and avatar. Andries 02:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: That is exactly the problem I am referring. The taxonomy proposed by Kranenborg is, when viewed from a Eastern perspective, a very strange one. --Zappaz 03:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Then what is your alternative? I think the current version is worse than Kranenborg's taxonomy. Andries 03:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblio additions by Andries 

message: I think the reason of the slightly negative connotation is due to several factors and not to one as in the current version. I do not have references so quickly but nor does the current version.
#Generals suspsicion of foreign philosophies
#Proselytizing by followers
#Public came into contact with followers who disseminated simplistic, idiosyncratic philosophies, including surrender to the guru and who sometimes gave up their careers and studies to follow the guru conflicting with the public's common sense.
#Scandals e.g. Osho but also due to scandals with more traditional gurus.
#Sometimes bitter complaints of ex-followers who were disillusioned
#Activities of the anti-cult movement
#Unpredictability of some of these gurus (similar with charismatic authority) and their strong influence of their followers
Andries 13:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep missing the point. For Sikhs, Hundus and Budhists, "guru" is to be respected and part of a tradition that spawns thousands of years. ll what you say is related to a very narrow interpretation of "guru", that of the Judeo-Christian tradition. --Zappaz 20:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I admit that the more traditional part spiritual advisor of the guru needs expansion but that is one part of Hinduism that I do not know much about.  Andries 21:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. At this rate I can see already two different articles emerging. One that deals with the traditional aspects of Guru as in the great religions of the East (Budhism, Hinduism and Sikhism) and another article that deals with the critique/analysis of Gurus by Western sociologists and thinkers. Intertesting is the fact that Western civilization always had a problem in trying to understand the complexity of the Eastern traditions, such as this one. --Zappaz 23:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zappaz, could you explain what you want with this article and explain why you moved van der Lans' and Kranenborg's citations to "Western context" though Kranenborg and van der Lans make statements that apply both to Hindu and westernized gurus? Andries 08:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very obvious why. Both Kraneborg and der Lans are Westerners. For a Sikh, a Hindu or a Budhist, these assertions are tainted by a western world-view. The more I think about it, the more I feel that we need to create two separate articles. One that discusses Guru from a Western perspective, and one that discusses guru from a Budhist, Hinduist and Sikh perspective. --Zappaz 18:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See this example: Imagine I am a Budhist that passionately studying Jesus and Christianity. I then come to Wikipedia and start editing the article. I am, of course, writing about Jesus from my world-view, that is Budhist. I compare Jesus with the Dalai-Lama, I start making comparisons between the Jesus' teachings and the Gautama's. Surely Christians will not be very happy about it. They will have no problem on a short  section about "Budhism's views on Jesus", what they will be rightly upset if that section becomes the predominant section in the article. Do you see the problem...?   --Zappaz 18:22, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can imagine a distinction between religious views (Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, Sant Mat) on gurus and secular views (psychological, sociological) but to make separate section and even articles on Western views is wrong, I believe. Some originally Indians hold Western ideas and some Westerners hold Hindu ideas. I do not think that there is much difference between an Indian enlightened master and a western enlightened master. I met a Western guru from the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, who followed an Indian guru and who held Hindu ideas about gurus. Lane has followed and written about an gurus for decades. Kranenborg started to study gurus in the early seventies. Andries 21:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Please don't. Please respond first to the position that I have explained above. If you stil intend to do so, I would suggest to bring this to RfC to see what other editors think. --Zappaz 03:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons of slightly negative connotation