Talk:Guru/Archive 6

message: This statement:
:Gurus of the Surat Shabd Yoga traditions often are referred to as Satgurus or Sat (True) Gurus.
is incorrect. Satguru or Sadguru is not only applicable to the Surat Shabd. I have added a wikilink to the Satguru article. --ZappaZ  00:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you so upset? I only made a statement that says that the term "satguru" is not used only in the Surat Sabd tradition, and that is a correct statement. It has nothing to do with intolerance... The text you added implies that this term is only applicable to Surat Shabd. Maybe we just need to qualify that. --ZappaZ  01:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satguru 

message: The article should state if and why the following is a significant shloka. In what scripture can it be found or is often quoted, if so by whom?
:"A Sanskrit Sloka goes thus: 
::Guru Brahma Guru Vishnu Guru Devo Maheshwara 
::Guru Sakshath Parambrahma Tasmai Shri Gurave Namaha"
Andries 08:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gurubrahma, I understand that you consider the quote important but for inclusion in this article there needs to be some proof that this quote is significant in Hinduism. If there is no such proof, the quote should be moved to wikiquote. Andries 09:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andries, a google search with this sloka vis-a-vis other slokas in the article would tell you of its significance. You may also want to look at the article Aarti. btw, Goethean has added the source in the article. --Gurubrahma 15:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this a significant shloka? "Guru Brahma ..." 

message: As I am  not familiar with non-Western theology, would someone more knowledgeable on Gurus (and related areas) care to add a few lines to Women as theological figures. (Either or both sections)
Jackiespeel 16:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: The following sounds like unattributed POV
:"The institution of the guru has evolved various basic tenets of Indian culture and transmitted spiritual and fundamental knowledge. Gurus formed the axis of ancient educational system and ancient society, and enriched various fields of learning and culture by their creative thinking. In this lies the lasting significance of gurus and their contribution to the upliftment of mankind."
Please provide reliable sources or make it into attributed opinions from a notbable source. Otherwise I will delete it. Thanks Andries 20:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed,. That was a copyvio from http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa012400a.htm  (at bottom of page) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 23:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The following sounds like unattributed POV

message: I have removed unecessary titles and superlatived, some of which are POV (i.e the fact that a person studied philosophy, does not make him a "Pholosopher"). As each scholar listed has a bio article, let that be as simple as stating the name of the scholar and allow the wikilink to provide info. If there is no article, let us create stubs to start with. --ZappaZ  18:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: no, I do not agree. A basic introduction is necessary. Besides I do not have not enough biographical information for some people, like Anthony Storr and Alexander Deutsch. When a person is not a philosopher but teaches philosophy, as is the case of David Lane then this can be stated as such. Andries 18:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The text about Lane read "sociologist and philosopher". If you do not have info on scholars, that is not an issue. Create a stub as I have created for Van der Lans. Other editors may add more info as it is marked as a stub. --ZappaZ  18:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to think about it but I think this writing style is quite strange. Andries 18:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "writing style" – You mean a hyperlink? Are you new or something? --goethean ॐ 18:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you write an opinion then you give the reader background information about the person stating this opinion. That is good practice and I do  not think that it is good practice to give no background infromation at all and  an put everything in the biography. For example, you wrote yourself about Adi Shankara here that he was influential. This is common knowledge for me but probably not for most readers and hence I agree with the inclusion of this background information here. Andries 19:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point, especially considering the completely irrelevant nobodies that you have dragged out in this article to represent your POV. --goethean ॐ 19:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hi, irrespective of the nature of comments made (POV or not), Background information makes sense. For example if I read that a certain X has said something, I'd be curious to know what he is (occupation) and where he is from (country) - the former to assess what sort of training he has in judging an issue and the latter to assess how much fit he is culturally to comment on that; However, I may be loath to click the links back and forth - net conectivity and speed do matter. So, I strongly believe that the background info is a must. However, if irrelevant nobodies are being cited, pl. remove the entire reference instead of the background info. As things stand, I'd think a rv to include bkgnd info is in order. --Gurubrahma 05:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gurubrahma that basic background information about the person voicing an opinion is what the average reader wants to know and hence should be provided here, not only in the biography. I will revert Zappaz' edits in this respect. Andries 19:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary titles 

message: Goethean writes at user:Goethean 
:"Most of the Guru article (53%, to be exact) is devoted to the opinions of Western secular scholars, some completely obscure, who specialize in unsympathetically debunking the religious claims of gurus."
Who is obscure Goethean? I do not agree that any of the mentioned critical scholars is obscure. Jan van der Lans was cited two times in the 1998 book "Politics of Religious Apostasy" edited by Bromley by two different authors and he was cited once in the 1989 book "Cults and religious movements: A report of the American Psychological Association" edited by Marc Galanter. It may be true that I have unconsciously and unintentionally focused on the critical material, but that is another matter. The possible reason for that is because I write down what I know. I know what I remember. I remember what strikes me as true. Mostly critical stuff strikes me as true. Andries 20:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Andries is a liar

message: ps: Did anyone ever hear of Ganesh Baba . He attracted a  plethora of westerners  but seems to have been(become in middle age) a sadhu , and rejected the  sense of necessity for the guru being  . Whilst  typically sadhu , he taught using the same  3x concentric circle symbol trademarked by the  odd Urantia foundation . That is the only overlap however . James Joyce seems to have  had an attachment to the symbol, it appeared on the  binding of one of his books . I believe . . Ganesh Baba used it to demonstrate the  levels required for understandin . he chastised the westerners and their inverted drug materialism : take a thing , a pill , to get high ! Crazy people , he said  . I think Ram Das knows  Ganesh Baba , who certainly visited the US  c. late 60's . Ganesh Baba  was for imploding the western guru search , or at any rate  anti-guru'd by irony , I believe .  GB was the one who hit it off with the Alpert / Timothy Leary  followers. 
Different from the  Boy Guru  . Seemingly when he was born , the string instruments hanging on the walls played themselves, so his aunties realised that he was in some way divine. From there it was  straight-forward presentation and control . he 's the guy addicted to ice-cream, who's power can be felt through a wall by the willing . Likes fast cars too , no ?  Just as the Mahesh Yogi collected them .  To chuck in our face , perhaps  to teach us something , same as  Sri [is it Mahatma ?] Ganesh Baba ..... chuck the tag ....actually the whole thing is a bit earnest, it was hard work as the info is too packed . Break it up into different articles as the learning that is taught can't be constrained like this on one  page , really . and the analysis of influence into the west sounds like it comes from within the east , thus missing the mark . I commend the considerable effort devoted , though . 
EffK 22:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are speaking of Neem Karoli Baba. Feel free to add info to that article. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ganesh Baba?Andries 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guru talk , Gurus, article length, de-construct  

message: There is a hip-hop MC named Guru.  He was the MC-half of the Old Skool/Underground duo Gang Starr, and continues to perform.  He has collaborated with MC Solaar.  So there should be a tag at the beginning of the article in italis that reads, "This article is about the Hindu discipleship tradition.  For the Hip-hop MC, please see Guru (rapper)".--Rockero 22:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, it is a great suggestion. I also found that there are other Gurus as well and hence created Guru (disambiguation). I have also added a tag at the beginning of this article accordingly. --Gurubrahma 13:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation? 

message: The reason why I gave a revert was because Mijoshi removed the generally accepted scholarly etymology of the word guru (heavy) and leaving only the popular etymology. I do admit that some of his changes were good though. Andries 10:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There are several etymologies in use, and these can all be described. There is no need to delete one, or the other. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 06:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Dear Andries, Thank you for your review and comments. My intention was/is not to create a debate or dispute, and thus am not modifying any changes made by you. Although, with all due respect, I believe that appending your thoughts to the topic was the fair way rather than doing a complete purge. I appreciate your understanding of the subject, and trust that all of us are aware of the vastness of the subject of Guru in Hinduism. This presents a little challenge of writing about it in the limited space provided (more so when Wikipedia has already put a notice regarding the length of the page). Further, if I understand correctly, for Wikipedia, the context of this topic is regarding the "concept" of a Guru, and not regarding "Guru" as an "entity" (there are so many!). To be fair and neutral in the encyclopaedic sense, and when you love and respect all the entities (or reject some due to personal/published cause), it is virtually impossible to quote all of them (or leave some of them) within the set bounds of a page. According to me, the fair course is to justify them under the topic/category where they belong. Hope you would agree. Finally, I do not intend to amuse myself by considering that I know everything about this subject, and I welcome and appreciate thoughts and view from the learned ones like you and Jossifresco. Thanks & regards. Miljoshi 07:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: While I do accept that we need to do better, I feel that Merishi's edits, esp. the copyedit ones, did improve the article. Considering that he is a newbie, it would be unfair for us to expect him to hit the ground running. I believe that the sections should actualy be sub-sections - it wd also help in editing an otherwise huge page. If there are no objections to the content of his edits, I will re-organize his contribs. I'll wait for a couple of days for comments. --Gurubrahma 05:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I reverted the edits by Miljoshi to lates version by AdelaMae

message: First off although I have not converted to Hinduism, I have been a student and practitioner of Hinduism for a awhile now. I have had a formal guru/disciple relationship which ended and am looking to have another one.
As I look at this article, my concern is that it is not an article, or at least parts of it aren't. Particuarly the Hindu section, I read it more as just giving the reader way too much information without helping them to understand what a guru actually is. 
I already removed a sloka which basically just repeated what was in the last two sentences.
~The word guru means teacher in Sanskrit, as well as in other languages derived from Sanskrit, such as Hindi, Bengali and Gujarati. The word originated in a Hindu context and holds a special place in Hinduism, signifying both the sacred place of knowledge (vidya) and the imparter of knowledge.
"Signifying the sacred place of knowledge?" What is that? 
:Vidya is both a "state" and a "place". Hopefuly someone will develop the Vidya article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, why not? This is an encyclopedia and any material that is properly sourced and that provides information on the subject (and yes, that includes etymologies and Sanskrit. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Follow the wikilinks to Krishna and Arjuna, if you want to learn about them. Fascinating stuff. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This is an article about Guru. Any and all material that is relevant to this article and that is not repetitive can go in the article. Please restore the etymology that you deleted. Concering the readers, please do not handhold them or spoonfeed them. Just provide the information. This is an encyclopedia, after all. Thank you for your understanding. As you seem rather new to Wikipedia, I would encourage you to become more familiar with its policies. Read The Five pillars of Wikipedia. (Aso, note that you can indent your responses using colons, and please sign your comments with four tildes. Thank you) ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree the the Hinduism section needs copyedit. That is why it has the copyedit tag. If you have experience with copyediting, that would be wonderful. As for your deletion, please note that the fact that it needs copyedit is not a reason for deletion. Thank you for your understanding. Please also read in detail Wikipedia's policy on Neutral point of view. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ 
Nowhere inside my mind do I have the concept that copy-edit = deletion. 
I am not a copy-editor, I leave that to those who are skilled at it.
However, if you look under the section "Guru in Hinduism" you will see that there is another request there.
I thank you for your reccomendation to check out NPOV. I will. I am curious if you are open to my request that you read a non-Hindu encylopedia article on "guru?"
Sethie 21:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The main object of Wikipedia is to provide information. With regards to the etymology  of guru (heavy) I will make the link to the current meaning of the word: According to the Dutch religious scholar Reender Kranenborg this was an indication of the weight given to the teacher in ancient times. Andries 20:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Please take into account that this is a controversial subjects which has a consequence that it is the duty of people editing this subject to read the disccussions before editing this article. This included the archives. The matter of the two different etymologies has extensively been discussed in the earlier archives.  Please respond to that earlier discussion. Thanks. Andries 21:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Sethie, here is the discussion about the two etymologiesTalk:Guru/archive1#Literal_meaning_of_the_term_.22Guru.22 The etymology of "heavy" is the one accepted by most scholars.  Andries 22:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: overall concern

message: The following statement by Sethie is inaccurate and I will revert it. 
:"In the Hindu tradition, the value of the Guru cannot be overstated."
This is only the case in some sects. In general, if you make a mixture of flawed and correct edits then do not be suprized that all your edits get reverted because people have no time to seperate them. Please do try to separate them yourself, if you have time. Andries 20:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rolled back to the version prior to the deletions and innacuracies introduced by Sethie. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: okay, it was inaccurate to write that you introduced inaccuracies. Thanks for separating your flawed statement from your correct statements and improvements. Andries
I would argue that material on the article is already plentiful. What we need now is not minutiae editing, but good solid copyediting. We need an editor that can provide this much needed and specific skill. As far as I know Andrie's mother tongue is Ducth, mine is Spanish, and as for Sethie, so far I must say I am not very impressed by his/her spelling and grammar... ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We are in agreement of that. The Guru in Hinduism section needs a lot of work, and that is why the article has the c tag. This means that the article is automatically added to the :Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit so that editors can come and give a hand. No need to do an RfC for this. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, as I said before, that the Hinduism section needs cleaup and copyedit. I disagree that there is too much material. On the contrary: one day we shall have one article for each of the sections in this article, and why not? Wikipedia is not paper ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate statement by Sethie

message: Please help me understand what you wish to accomplish by having this in the article? Is it a neccesary detail? Does it help the understanding of guru? 
I took it out. I gave a reason for taking it out:
"When I pretend I know nothing about Hinduism and read this, my reaction is:
What is transcendental knowledge?
Oh- there is that vidya thing again- lets see- okay- it is the light of knowledge.
Who is Lord Krishna... must be a kind or a royal of some kind, and who the hell is Arjuna?"
You did not reply to my challenge for it being there.  instead you said:
":Follow the wikilinks to Krishna and Arjuna, if you want to learn about them. Fascinating stuff."
Although I do not deny that it adds oppurtunities to learn more. my challenge still stands, how does having that add to THIS article? 
I am also wondering if you are working from a text or some book or an article? This page reads to me like some Hari Krishna literature that quotes scripture, has a slighlty stream of consciousness feel. It would help me to understand where you are coming from if this was so.
:In Hinduism, Arjuna is the embodiment of the student (devotee, student, shishya) and Krshna (an avatar) the embodiement of the teacher or master. The Bhagavad Gita describe their relationship (Arjun was a nobleman, amd Krishna his chariot driver) culminating in the recongition of Krishna by Arjun. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edit. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 03:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: ) I could not have done it without u! :)
Sethie 03:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentioning Krisha and Arjuna

message: Guess that the article's been coing out fine, and surely it has. But even after all these lengthy info about the what really involvs the GURU, at some point it still lacks, that is what I feel, the perception of those Gurus about seeing themselves as someone elses' Guru. How do they themselves have to say about it. Unless I'm mistaken, which I am sure I am not, Osho has famously remarked as him being no ones' guru and that's that! It'd definetly be a good read if we can come up with such statements from other Gurus as well. Merishi 09:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These issues can be discussed in article's about specific gurus, such as Osho. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: There is already an article on that subject: Guru-shishya tradition. Feel free to add new material to it. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 20:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about ...?  

message: The References section should be in an ordered list, with numbers preceeding the { { note  } } tags. The way that they are now, in an unorderd list is hard to read; the user cannot easily tell which note relates to which numbered entry [0] in the text.
This is in compliance with a recommendation in Wikipedia:Footnotes. (I may be wrong on all of this.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chèvredansante (talk • contribs) .
:Thanks, Chèvredansante. I will work on this. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Great. And thank you for signing my comment. I often forget. --Chèvredansante 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup on References 

message: The article stated "David C. Lane, a professor of sociology , ex-member and critic of Radha Soami Satsang Beas, argues [in 1997]"
I think this falsely suggests that Lane was already a critic of the Radha Soami Satsang in 1997. Please read this "Note: This is the text of a lecture delivered in 1998 and reflects the situation at that date. Since then, David Christopher Lane has changed many of his opinions, including his evaluation of MSIA." from   I corrected this. Andries 09:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: David Lane, then an ex member of the Radha Saomi Beas?

message: Moved to Sadhu article. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right. I had copied the image from the French Wikipedia. Andries 19:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of Sadhu and apprentice 

message: The word sect in an Indian context has a neutral meaning different from the word sect in other contexts. It is often used in scholarly articles about Hinduims and India. I will re-insert the word. Andries 09:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, the word sect in Hinduism or in an Indian context is neutral and very often used in scholarhip. I see no good reason why Wikipedia should deviate from this standard practice of using the word. Andries 09:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not remove the word [[sect]]

message: Regarding recent edit: Please keep the length of cited text short, to substantiate an edit. Either reduce considerably or remove altogether. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also do not add wikilinks to quoted text. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi, can you please explain why the cited text should be kept short? I think that out-of-context interpretations and summaries are more likely to take place if the citation is kept short. For example, you erronously place the opinion of Sacha Kester under the section "Gurus in a Western Culture context" though it should and could have been clear from the complete citation that Kester wrote about the situation in India (hippies who travel to India) i.e. not in a Western culture context. Andries 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 300 words is way too much text to support a 20 word paragraph. The cite belongs were I put it as it is the narrow wiew of one journalist. reverted. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Jossi Kester lived in India and described the situation there. She did not write about a Western culture context which should have been clear to you if you had read carefully the complete citation. Andries 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the view of a Western journalist. Western newspapers featuring guru-bashing? You can create a new article just for that Anti-guru articles in Western media. But as along we want to include some examples in this article,  there is a need to chose such articles judiciously so that we cite one or two major newapspapers/journalists and not obscure ones. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, were do you draw the line? Shall we start citing Indian newspaper articles in which the guru is exhated? That cite you aded from a Dutch newspaper, is it representative enough for this article? Or just an opinion of a journalist? Finding an anit0guru cite in a western newspaper is not a big deal. How many of these we need in this article? I would argue for none. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you erroneously believe that the De Volkskrant is an obscure newspaper then try to verifiy your opinion on the Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_topics_related_to_the_Netherlands. Kester described the situation in India and cited two Indians in India, so her opinion does not belong in the section "Wester Culture Context". This should have been clear to you if you had read the complete citation.  Andries 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Andries, that part which Jossi reverted is not for "Attributes of Guru in Hinduism". That maybe added in criticism section. -  Holy Ganga  talk  18:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay I will make a criticism section for "Criticism and assesment of gurus in India" Andries 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That is a westerner view and as such does not belong in that section. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, she does not treat the situation of a Western culture context. In addition she quote two Indians. Andries 18:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The number of Indians she cites is inconsequential. That is the perspective of a western journalist and it belongs in the section about western culture, if at all. See my comments above about citing guru-bashing newspaper articles. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So since when are gurus in India "A Western culture context"? The structure of the article is wrong and hence all the senseless disputes about where something belongs. Andries 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi, I have made it abundantly clear that I do not agree with an uncritical attitude in wikipedia against gurus. But why can you no longer believe in my sincerity is something I do not really understand. Andries 18:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Jossi, can you please specify where I have broken Wikipedia policies and guidelines lately? Andries 18:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy is there to assist us in creating an encyclopedia. Not to finds ways to bypass it to push our POV. That is what, in my opinion based on witnessing your edits over 2 years, tell me. If you don't agree on an uncritical attitude on a subject covered in Wikipedia, that has no bearing on the fact that we are editing an encyclopedia in which advocacy (pro or con) is not welcome. Furthermore, the way to show good faith is to edit Wikipedia without such an agenda. Demonstrate that you care for this project more that you care for your anti-guru POV and you will gain my respect and the respect of others.≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the problem with you complaints and accuations against me. You always accuse me, but you cannot give concrete examples of violations of policies and guidelines. How seriously then should your complaints and accusations be taken? Of course the criticisms in this and other articles have bearings in fact. Andries 19:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone, and I mean anyone, can see the pattern of your edits. It is all there and these speak for themselves. That says it all IMO. Now, I am taking a break to enjoy my weekend. Have a nice weekend too. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of cited text 

message: I removed the latter reference to Alexander Deutsch that was added by Andries. See Sathya Sai Baba Talk Page: Another Complete Distortion Of Facts for further information. SSS108 talk-email 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding Alexander Deutsch Reference

message: Given the specific and accurate meaning of Guru used here in this article, I suggest that "Spiritual Teacher" should not be redirected here, but rather should be a category (rather than an article), one that includes the many non-guru spiritual teachers.
I would be bold and do that except I can't figure out how to get to the Spiritual Teacher redirect page, because of course it automatically redirects me back here.  Msalt 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guru vs. Spiritual Teacher 

message: You can read  here quotes taken from the book The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power written by Joel Kramer and Diana Alstad:
*http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/documents/guru-papers/
*http://www.ex-premie.org/papers/gp_quotes.htm
Seems to be worthwile reading, the book. I hope it does not talk about socalled "eastern Gurus" only. Austerlitz 88.72.18.72 13:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes from "The Guru Papers - Masks of Authoritarian Power" 

message: According to my taste and judgement this is an excellent article, with an astonishing outcome. Can we put the link here, and where best put it, which section?
:Austerlitz -- 88.72.2.179 11:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The appropriate section would be: 'Views of "Guru" from a Western culture perspective'. Bur rather than having a link, you can summarize the article in a sentence and add it to that section. Otherwise you can place a link in the 'External Links" section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: thank's, for the moment I'll accept the most easy proposal and place a link in the section.
Greetings, Austerlitz -- 88.72.28.102 18:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tough stuff, but excellent