Talk:Satguru

message: Propose to merge this into Guru. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By creating a new section on the Guru article, named Satguru and explaining the specifics of this term. What do you think? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you could merge the Hindu sections about Satguru with Guru, but the Sikh version is not the same.  Satguru is a name for god, like Waheguru and is not a learned teacher.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think that Redirects can include anchors... So we can leave it like this for now. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 23:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're right, but it was worth a try.  I also think the "See also" works for now.  — RDF talk 23:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: That may be the case, but in folllowing Wikipedia policy, we can only write based on sources we find. Check my last edit to Guru. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 21:12, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: #removed Sikhism template as this article refers to Hiduism, Sikhism and Surat Shabd
#removed material that is discussed in the Guru, Contemporary Sant Mat movement and others
≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 00:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Hey, everybody. Take a deep breath. Not long ago this was a pretty nice clean site. Then it became a magnet for everyone's teaching from their satguru. That's not what this is. Think about it. People read in books or on the net that so and so said he was a satguru or claimed to be one. So they go onto Wikipedia to see what that word means. Do you want to find a bunch of disciples of people arguing over what their "satguru" said about "satgurus?" Or talking about yoga practices or other sanskrit terms. Please please please help us get this site to a point where the researcher can learn about what a sadguru is (not from a contemporary guru either, for then there will be arument). Stick to the tradition only. Please don't make a fool out of such a great tradition by including all the things that you feel your guru would want you to include here. Stay on topic and use traditional vedantic sources. Otherwise you are scaring off people as we look like lunatics. Please. I don't know what else to say.    If you, Hamsacharya dan, Hanuman Das, and Baba Louis, will let me I  will stream line this and make some suggestions for scholarly sources and the modern guru (he said she said) stuff can be cleared out. This will really help the eastern part of Wikipedia if we can get this to a higher level since "satguru" is really central to the whole teaching of eastern thought. Let's serve Wikipedia users in this way. Jon 12:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't understand what the problem is. Just two days ago, you said "Thanks. I think the paragraph looks pretty good now." The only thing which has changed is Baba Louis' addition, which it seems you agree with. Also, I don't see any edit warring in this article. I was pleased to collaborate with you and pleased with the resulting paragraph. Could you be clearer about what has changed since you said it looked pretty good? In point of fact, the article should not be a dictionary entry. Contemporary opinions are proper subject matter for an encyclopdia, though perhaps a heading to separate them from the main body is in order. I'd like to see details about what sects require sannyasin status and what sects allow householders. That is also information worthy of an in-depth encyclopedia article. I don't see any problem with the article except that the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath quote is too long and the last half of it is off-topic. But I won't touch it b/c User:Hamsacharya dan gets vindictive when you change his stuff, refuses to discuss it, calls it vandalism, and accuses everybody of being a sockpuppet. I don't need the grief, so could you please make the change? —Hanuman Das 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Take a breath

message: I hope the overall reorganization is something everyone can live with for now. I think it's a page people wouldn't mind linking to and is informative. I am hoping that the "Ancient sources" section will be expanded from other vedic and Buddhist sources. I hope no one's feelings are hurt. The etymology of "guru" belongs under guru and the etymology of "sat" was already stated at the top. A lot of the Gurunath material read a little like original research or poetic license. It may not have been but that's how it read. Better to stick with what has been said or what he said, with quotes and references to maintain the appearance of objectivity and impartiality.Chris 11:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent edit, imo. —Hanuman Das 12:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hope my edits have not disrupted the new organization of the article.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Organization 

message: Please note that personal web pages and/or self published books are not considered reliable sources and should only be used as primary sources about the author or the book. See WP:RS. We need a better citation for that text. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 18:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation is fine. A quick Google search should have sufficed to show that it was simply a published book which is also available on the web and provide the ISBN... I have done so... —Hanuman Das 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have the right resources for Sanskrit etymology. Sorry. —Hanuman Das 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, only a few books published in India really get much representation on Amazon.com. I could tell right away that it was an Indian book when I Googled b/c it showed an ISBN starting with 8. Hard to say how widely available it is in India, but it is certainly published by a book publisher since a self-published book in India is unlikely to have an ISBN... —Hanuman Das 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John the  Baptist as Satguru 

message: As far as I understand, Sikhs refer often to Guru Nanak as "Satguru Nanak". See  Is there a Sikh here amongst editors that may clarify this? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satguru Nanak 

message: Suggestion: please explain the lexical difference between Sadguru and Satguru. Why are both terms used? 
in Sanskrit (roughly):
*Satyam - the truth
*Sada - all encompassing, highest, all-inclusive, all
*Sadashiva - the highest form of Shiva
MahaDave 02:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Sadguru and Satguru 

message: * "Sadhguru	
A spiritual teacher who is Enlightened, or has Realized the Self, whose knowledge or realization comes from within rather than from any teachings learned outside."
sadhguru have realization only upto its own soul of true self which is of parbhrahma.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.255.114 (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.6 (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Sadhguru? 

message: There is something really messed up about this article. 90% of it is from Vihangamyoga which is an article without a single reference.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.47.141 (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is actually a good point.LittleDoGooder (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up? 

message: A discussion is on at Talk:Jaggi Vasudev#Redirect Sadhguru like Sadguru to Satguru Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 15:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect discussion

message: Hi All, planning to move section related to Satsang to the new article Satsangh.Jasperkal (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planning to move Satsang to the new article "Satsangh"