Talk:Techniques of Knowledge/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Techniques of Knowledge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Historical references

Quote:

Historical references to these techniques can be found in books and poems from many spiritual practices as "Light", "Sound", "Name" and "Nectar" or similar names.

Fine. Historical references are first rate encyclopedic stuff. So, whoever added this sentece, give some concrete references supporting this claim?

Pjacobi 10:59, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Some of these historical references are already there. I can found you some more if needed. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • But I was thinking more along the line, of actually quoting these historical references to give an independent account on the four techniques, which are currently not described at all in the article. --Pjacobi 11:24, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

That will be interesting. I will expand the research and make a list of these references. Maybe others can also help with this as well. --Zappaz 16:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi, I added many of the references in this article based on my research of the subject. Hope these are sufficient. Don't know about the "nectar", though, but surely there are many references to "light", "sound" and" name" in scriptures form several spiritual practices. --Zappaz 03:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But Zappaz, how can you possibly write as if it were a fact that those "references" refer to these four techniques? I think you have to provide much more proof for that. Kranenborg called then simplified yoga exercises. Andries 08:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not about "proof" Andries. Why do you aks for that? Followers of PR claim that the techniques have been taught for millenia. As long as that is attributed, that is NPOV. I will change the text to reflect that. The way it is now written may be interpreted as easily corroborated facts, and that may be misleading. --Zappaz 16:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like hundreds of other guru-movements they believe that their form of meditation is referred to in the sacred scriptures and as a consequence that all other movements are wrong. Rawat even said that Jesus gave Knowledge. The way it is formulated now is just the movement's opinion written down as if it were a proven fact but even I got tired of correcting this propaganda piece. Andries 11:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since when are you an expert is this Knowledge? I thought that you were a ex-follwoer of Sai baba? Go edit that article. ≈ jossi ≈ 15:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry Andries, Jossi doesn't know anything about knowledge himself, only Maharaji does.;-) Thomas h 18:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where's the beef?

OK, more than two weeks and no progress. Those who theoretically would be able, to add actual descriptions of the four techniques are in hibernation, and the idea of digging them out of the historical references hasn't found any takers.

In the meantime I requested comments on the general issue of "secret knowledge", see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive F#Policy_on_.22secret_knowledge.22. I'm now quite sure that the article in its current state is against Wikipedia policy. Can we expect any improvement, shall it go directly to VfD or can help be expected by issueing an RfC for this article?

Pjacobi 18:38, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

We only have that Link in this article which points to ex-premie.org , which i had to restore several times after 64.81.88.140/jossi tried to remove it. It has a pretty accurate description of the technics, the little difference concerning the 1st technic i can correct myself. Thomas h 21:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the problem pjacobi? Please explain why this article does not conform to WP policy, and why does it need a VfD? --64.81.88.140 21:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pjacobi, I don't see your point. The text is fully attributed and references provided. What's up? --Zappaz 21:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have attributed the information about the techniques of Knoweldge to students rather than as a proven fact. If you still want to go ahead and place the VfD tags, please do so. --≈ jossi ≈ 22:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Of course VfD is only a last measure and we should add to rather than remove from the Wikipedia if possible. But the core problem of this article is, that it doesn't define its lemma. It just doesn't tell the reader what these techniques of knowledge are. We don't ask CoS whether they like their "secret teachings" revealed. Why such self-constraint in this article?

And, as a consequence of this, the article borders on advertising. As I've put it in the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) discussion:

Thanks for all these sensible comments. I'm still unclear about the secret "secret knowledge" articles. I.e. those of the pattern "X is a wonderful but secret technique. X will make you happy and the world peacefull. We won't reveal anything here, because it's secret, but you can join our organisation/pay $$$$ for the introductary course to learn more." VfD? --Pjacobi 08:49, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Jossi's last changes did address this issue somewhat, by attributing the statements about positive effects. But the above core point is unaddressed.

Pjacobi 22:16, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

What point, Pjacobi? Enlighten us, please... --Zappaz 22:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What exactly in the article doesn't define its lemma is unclear? --Pjacobi 22:35, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

FYI, Knowledge is free, It does not cost you one penny. It is given as a gift. The "course" is also free. It is also not secret in the "weird" connotation that you imply. The apostate ex-followers have made it a point to publish their recollection of these techniques in numerous web pages (as it is an accomplishment... Go figure) As the article says:

to be useful, the techniques require preparation and mentoring by a living teacher.

If you still think that is is advertising, please place the article in VfD.

Sorry, but I do not understand what "lemma" is. --≈ jossi ≈ 22:39, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

• For the price of even uglier style the advertising problem is minimized now.
• The lemma of an encyclopedic article, is the Begriff (Google translates "term" but re-translates to "Bezeichnung") that is to be defined and explained by the article. The title, or more exactly, the thing designated by the title, as explaining the words of the title is the task of a dictionary.
• So, this article doesn't defined and explain the techniques of knowledge. It only talks about their alleged effects, the way they are tought, their possible origin, but not themselves. That is fine for a riddle, but not for an encyclopedia.

Pjacobi 22:58, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

1. If the style is "ugly", then "write for the enemy" and make it better
2. If the article is "advertising", then present your case here and discuss it with fellow editors
3. The article provides a wealth of information about the Techniques of Knowledge.
4. I still see your actions to be weighted by religious intolerance of the worst kind. --≈ jossi ≈ 23:08, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot heal the major problem here, I don't know what the techniques of knowledge are. You seemingly know and would be able to include a description within minutes. --Pjacobi 23:11, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Have you read the article? It seems that you have not. When I was taught the techniques of Knowledge I made a promise not to reveal these techniques to anyone. In fact everybody that was taught these techniques made that promise. And not a single legal document was signed, no disclaimers, nothing: just a teacher trusting a students' honest request to be taught. Are you asking me to betray my dignity and the trust given to me? Apostate students have posted descriptions on their website (that by the way are sorely incorrect), as per the link in the article. Is that not sufficient? If ex-students have broken their promise and betrayed that trust, shoud Wikipedia congratulate them and post their interpretations in this article. That is preposterous. --≈ jossi ≈ 23:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Worüber man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen

approximately: What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence

• Wittgenstein in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, proposition 7

That's the core problem. Do we agree now? You cannot (don't want to) give an explanation and you claim problems with existing explanations. So what choice is left?

Pjacobi 23:49, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance of Tractacu's on this context. Now that you ask, the choices we have are:

1. Place the article in VfD
2. Merge the article into Teachings of Prem Rawat
3. Move the article to another title to avoid the article doesn't define its lemma

--≈ jossi ≈ 23:54, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

As long as we cannot provide an actual description of the techniques, merging into Teachings of Prem Rawat would seem to be a natural choice.

But of course, adding an explanation of the techniques would be the best choice. Whereas it doesn't make a substantial difference from a Wikipedia policies' point of view, may I ask you a question about your feelings in this area:

• It's clear that it's against your vows, that you reveal the description, but would including the description without your help pose a problem to you?

(In german Wikipedia we had quite a discussion whether to include images of Baha'u'llah in the Bahai articles, because our editors of Bahai faith claimed to be unable to further edit the articles once the images are shown)

--Pjacobi 00:10, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

I can assure you that posting the description of the techniques (the likely source being apostate ex-students that chose to break the vow and that have chosen to become vociferous critics and sometime "professional enemies" of Prem Rawat and his students) will be a unbridgeable affront to the many hundreds of thousands of students around the world. The article and Wikipedia will not suffer by not having these techniques described here. Let it go. Please. : --≈ jossi ≈ 02:06, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to do a sober summary for now:

• In Wikipedia's consensus based system, it shouldn't trouble you too much, that a single editor (myself) isn't satisfied with the article. That wouldn't imply any need for immediate action. Other editors will have a look at the article in the future and new opinions and contributions will arrive over time.
• OTOH, the principle not to withhold information for reasons of hurt feelings seems to be a rather well-entrenched policy. Apart from the opinions offered at the Village Pump, the Xenu and the Baha'u'llah, and even better matching example would be the inclusion of description of the LDS (Mormons) temple rites, against the will of the believers. So starting the article Techniques of Knowledge had started a sequence of events, which will lead, at some time in the future to the inclusion if the descriptions. You are free to start a vote for changing the general policy, but chances of success are slim.
• Currently, all easily available descriptions are ultimately sourced at ex-premie.org. This is a sub-optimal state of source availabily and credibility. This is reason enough for me, not to include it in the article for now.

Pjacobi 11:51, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Disingenous tactics

I find Pjacobi's tactic of posting a discussion about this article in Wikipedia:Village_pump without having the courtesy to annouce it here, to be disingenous and malicious. At least you could have ahd the decency of asking the editors of this article to address your concerns. --≈ jossi ≈ 22:50, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

As I've been sometimes mislead about applicable policies (especially given the problem, that there are differences in details between the different language wikipedias), I was looking for advice on general policy handling. As you can see from the discussion at the village pump, the problem was exposed using a wide variety of topics. --Pjacobi 23:01, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Not good enough. PJacobi. It would have taken you 30 seconds to announce here that you wanted clarification of these policies. Read my response at the Village pump. --≈ jossi ≈ 23:04, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Of course, If you have reasons to believe, I'm acting in bad faith, you should explore the possiblities if Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You may wan't to contact User:Timharwoodx who (also?) feels harassed by me. OTOH in my opinion I'm only doing the necessary quality assurance needed for serious encyclopedic work. --Pjacobi 23:09, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

It doesn't look good, pJacobi... --Zappaz 23:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And honestly, announcing the problem at the same time here, would only have resulted in a large, strange discussion as in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat. --Pjacobi 23:15, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I find that comment adding harm to injury. You are showinga kind of disrespect for fellow editors that I have not observed elsewere. --≈ jossi ≈ 23:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I judge my formulation to be a mild compromise. Compare the formulation used by sysop Rossami who closed and decided the Criticism VfD: . --Pjacobi 23:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

That is no excuse. What you did was disingenuos. --≈ jossi ≈ 23:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

In addition I was hoping, that by citing historical sources, some of you would be able to present the techniques without breaking your vow. --Pjacobi 23:52, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

You could have had your answer on March 4, if you had posted your concerns here. What hurts most was the tone of voice in your comment at the Vilage pump, as if this article's purpose was a cheap sales advert. Maharaji does not sell anyhting. In fact even if he wanted, he couldn't. Because the experience that he speaks about is already within you. How can he sell you something you already have? He only offers inspiration and guidance (to those that want it) in a process of discovery. It is not about "learning". It is about self-discovery. The techniques are just a tool. But you need to do the digging. --≈ jossi ≈ 02:11, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Intro should reflect the article

This is an almost 1,0000-word article. At least 900 of those words are concerning the teachings of Prem Rawat. In order for the intro to introduce the topic, it should mention the subject of the article. If someone else would like to do the re-write, that's fine. But the historical info should probably be moved down to a paragraph of its own so that the intro can summarize the article. Or, the Prem Rawat stuff should be moved to an article of its own. Either way. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:27, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

140 comments on heritage of knowledge

you mentioned that sant mat has nothing to do with prem rawat and knowledge. Unfortunately this is plain wrong. Denying that background because it may shake your belief system cannot be a reason to avoid it here. The idea of "perfect master" and the unbroken line of those is pure sant mat, this is a proven fact. Hans has even manifested that by giving Rawat the name Sant Prem Pal Singh Rawat, though not being a sikh himself, to point into that direction . Thomas h 06:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point of view of ex-students like you, Thomas. But there is another point of view that denies that. So, in answering to both you and Willmcw above, I have made some changes to the intro. ≈ jossi ≈ 14:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Would you please make clear which point of view is denying that? Could please explain that POV? Thomas h 15:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The text now reads: It has been alleged that the techniques of Knowledge, also known as kriyas, originated from the Surat Shabda Yoga or Sant Mat. Alleged by whom? We need a notable citacion for this, or we ought to delete it. (BTW, "kriyas" means literally "technique", a generic term used in Hindi for many yoga practices, such as the shat-karma yogic cleansing practices, yoga postures, yoga dances, chanting, etc.). --Zappaz 05:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alleged by David Lane and others, read , please. Zappaz you did the research for month or even over a year by now, i think you know the sources exactly, for they are posted on EPO, even the meaning of some quotes in the paragraph down below are basically identical with what rawat or dlm tought before the revision of terms started(Lord of Souls, ,ocean of love etc.). I still have a hard time to believe that this article shall be some piece of comprehensive information. Delete what you want, add what you want, i don't care, i don't think it's worth it anymore Thomas h 09:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If David C. Lane wrote about a connection between Surat Shabda and the techniques of knowledge, that would be an excellent reference, Thomas. Can you provide a citacion? then we will be done! Regarding the book 'Paramhansa Advait Mat', I do not see how that book supports that allegation. Yes, that book has very interesting information, and has some text about Surat Shabda, but does not allege that the techniques of knowledge are based on Surat Shabda, beyond that of caling it the "Yoga of sound and light". That book can be an excellent source for an article about the Advait Mat, but do not see the relevance, beyond the fact that it is fully featured the ex-premie website (and a copyvio, BTW). --Zappaz 15:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indian scriptures

Can someone provide a citacion for this statement? Which Indian scriptures? I have removed it until then. ≈ jossi ≈ 17:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

In Indian scriptures it is often referred as Gyãn (also Jnana) or "Knowledge of the self", as well as Raj Vidya or "King of all knowledge".

If we are into this now, we ought to check the statement about Surat Shabda Yoga. As far as I know, Surat Shabda refers to the Yoga of sound and light of the Radhasoami faith. Are critics saying that the techniques of Knowledge are the same as Surat Shabda? Below is what Radhasoami says about this Yoga. It refers to "light" and "sound". I read also that the Radhasoami faith believes (like mary other Eastern religions) in a living guru or master. Are these the alleged connection? It will be good to have an article on the Radhasoami and Surat Shabda Yoga to refer to, then. Any volunteers? --Zappaz 18:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SURAT SHABDA YOGA MEDITATION:

• Simran is the spiritual practice of repeating God's Name.
• Dhyan is contemplating upon the Radiant Form of the Master and seeing the Light along the various inner stages or heavens within.
• Bhajan is the art of listening to the Sound Current in meditation with love and devotion, becoming one with IT, letting IT take us back Home again.
• All of these holy spiritual practices are to be done with an attitude of love and devotion for the Supreme Being, the Ocean of Love and Compassion -- the Lord of All Souls.

Criticism

Wim Haan's neutral observations were never meant to be criticism and hence should not appear under that section title. Andries 17:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where shall we put it then? --Zappaz 18:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Techniques according to Dr. Reender Kranenborg

Dutch original from Kranenborg, Reender Dr. (1982) Oosterse Geloofsbewegingen in het Westen/Eastern faith movements in the West (Dutch language) ISBN 9021049651

"De methodes van de vier technieken zijn officieel geheim. Maar geheimen blijven moeilijk bewaard en ook deze vier technieken zijn bekend. Ze zijn bij de Divine Light Mission vrij simpel.

• De 'meditatie van het licht' houdt in dat men de ogen sluit en met de duimen op de oogballen drukt zodat deze naar elkaar toe gaan en als het ware ‘het derde oog’ geopend wordt. Na verloop van tijd ziet men dan het licht. De oorspronkelijk bedoeling van deze oefening, zoals die in het tantrisme beoefend word, is inderdaad het openen van ‘het derde oog’ tussen de wenkbrauwen op het voorhoofd, maar dan wel na een lange en zware training.
• De ‘meditatie van het geluid’ houdt in dat men de oren met de duimen dichtdrukt, met de handen op de slapen. Na verloop van tij hoort men het geruis van het bloed en tenslotte hemelse muziek. Oorspronkelijk is deze oefening een sabda-brahman-meditatie, waarin men uitgaat van de eeuwige trillingen die de basis van het universum vormen en het goddelijke uitmaken. De filosofie van de ook in Nederland aanwezige Radha Soami Satsang is hierop gebaseerd.
• De ‘meditatie van de nectar’ houdt in dat men met de tong achter de huig probeert te komen. Wie hierin slaagt proeft de nectar. Deze oefening komt oorspronkelijk uit de yoga, waar ze een onderdeel vormt van de uitgebreide ademhalingsoefeningen.
• De ‘meditatie van het woord’ bestaat hieruit dat men de adem naar binnen volgt en bij het uitademenen mantra’s gebruikt: hamsa en soham, resp. als betekenis hebbend ‘zwaan’ (de goddelijkheid) en ‘dat ben ik ‘ (namelijk:dat goddelijke). Deze oefening is verwant met de ‘japa-‘ of mantra-yoga, zoals we die ook tegenkomen bij de Transcedente Meditatie en bij de Hare Krishna’s.

Op zichzelf zijn de vier meditaties niet uniek. Het speciale van de Divine Light Mission is dat ze losgemaakt zijn uit het verband waar ze in passen en verregaand vereenvoudigd zijn."

Andries 16:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

• Expanded and contextualized the terms & conditions for preparation via the Keys process
• Added a line and corrected link to critical website in which the terms & conditions are discussed
• Replaced all in-line external references with proper ref & note notation.

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Simply changed the referencing style to that currently being used. It was a learning thing. ( Errol Vieth 22:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC) )
• Have changed "Rawat's techniques" to "the techniques of Knowledge". Whilst they are given by Rawat, I do not believe they belong to him. More importantly, the latter phrase describes what we are discussing on this page. I've also changed a number of misspellings of "practise"; that is, the noun has been used instead of the verb. I've also changed the wording of "...purportedly described by people authorized by Rawat" to something a little clearer. The description was not "purported", rather, the people were purported to be authorized. Errol V 11:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)