Talk:Kundalini yoga/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Yogi Bhajan inclusion valid on topic of Kundalini Yoga

The argument (see "[Improving this article]") that Kundalini Yoga page should not include Yogi Bhajan is unprecedented. Gatoclass is using diversion to make his argument by comparing changes to Kundalini Yoga to changes on the meditation page. This is not an umbrella category such as the yoga page; this is the Kundalini Yoga page, and Yogi Bhajans' vast contributions to Kundalini as a form of Yoga are irrefutable. He brought such an extensive breath of knowledge on the subject to the public - over 500 books and references on the subject, 10,000 exercises and meditations, 8,000 lectures over 35 years, and additional studies in many, many more related health fields. Yogi Bhajan was the founder of Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan, directly related to Kundalini Yoga, and his legacy includes a lifetimes of work on the subject of Kundalini Yoga. As a Master of Kundalini Yoga, he was recognized by the US Government in a unanimously passed Joint Congressional Resolution for his contributions to US society and his teachings ([[1]] Senate Honorary Resolution 148, US Library of Congress). His break with the secrecy surrounding Kundalini Yoga was taken at great personal sacrifice which he undertook in 1968 to bring this style to the United States and train teachers worldwide, which is well documented in numerous publications and articles (see Yogi Bhajan page). He founded organizations in the early 1970s - [3HO] and the [Kundalini Research Institute] - which are maintained by over 30 centers across the globe, serve the global community, connect teachers, schedule yogic events, and oversee the publications and developments relating to Kundalini Yoga. He developed a systematic training system, text books and three levels of teacher training related to Kundalini Yoga [[2]] - under which thousands of teachers have been trained. Ignoring his contributions to the field would be akin to a page on Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis ignoring the contributions of Freud. Based on his contributions and the following examples, it is believed that continual removal of this information amounts to [Tendentious Editing]. --Fatehji (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As an example of influential, founding, popular and ground-breaking teachers included prominently on other yoga pages, please look at the following pages:

Many modern schools of Hatha Yoga derive from the school of Sri Tirumalai Krishnamacharya, who taught from 1924 until his death in 1989. Among his students prominent in popularizing Yoga in the West were Sri K. Pattabhi Jois, famous for popularizing the vigorous Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga style, B.K.S. Iyengar who emphasizes alignment and the use of props, Indra Devi and Krishnamacharya's son T.K.V. Desikachar who developed the Viniyoga style. Desikachar founded the Krishnamacharya Yoga Mandiram in Chennai, with the aim of making available the heritage of yoga as taught by Krishnamacharya.

Another major stream of influence was Swami Sivananda of Rishikesh (1887-1963) and his many disciples, including Swami Vishnu-devananda - founder of International Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Centres, Swami Satyananda - of the Bihar School of Yoga, Swami Satchidananda - of Integral Yoga, Swami Sivananda Radha - founder of Yasodhara Ashram, Yoga Retreat & Study centre, among others.

Kriya Yoga, as taught by Lahiri Mahasaya, is traditionally learned via the Guru-disciple relationship. He recounted that after his initiation into Kriya Yoga, "Babaji instructed me in the ancient rigid rules which govern the transmission of the yogic art from Guru to disciple." (primary source)

  • Ashtanga Yoga: "Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga is an ancient system of yoga popularized by K. Pattabhi Jois. Pattabhi Jois began his yoga studies in 1927 at the age of 12, and by 1948 had established an institute for teaching the specific yoga practice known as Ashtanga (Sanskrit for "eight-limbed") Yoga."

The Ashtanga Vinyasa series is said to have its origin in an ancient text called the Yoga Korunta, compiled by Vamana Rishi, which Krishnamacharya received from his Guru Rama Mohan Brahmachari at Mount Kailash in the early 20th century.

Krishnamacharya has had considerable influence on many of the modern forms of yoga taught today. Among his students were many notable present-day teachers such as K. Pattabhi Jois, B.K.S. Iyengar, Indra Devi, and Krishnamacharya's son T.K.V. Desikachar.

--Fatehji (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

These are not exactly analogous to the situation here. Hatha Yoga is a broad system of yoga apparently originating in the 15th century. Today, there are countless schools teaching various forms of Hatha Yoga. Kriya Yoga appears to be a specific school of yoga developed through one particular lineage. There are not AFAIK multiple schools of Kriya Yoga. And the article you quote re Ashtanga Yoga is actually the Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga article which again is an article about a specific school of Yoga. The latter two articles are more analogous to the Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan article.
This particular article is about kundalini yoga, which is more like hatha yoga in the sense that forms of it are practiced by many different schools. The common factor is that they are schools and practices specifically focussed on awakening and maintaining the kundalini, whereas some other schools of yoga may only refer to the kundalini obliquely. This article is currently a bit of a mess and its focus is unclear, but arguably it should be trying to say something about what distinguishes kundalini yoga from other schools of yoga. What the article shouldn't be is a coatrack for particular schools of kundalini yoga, we already have articles on individual schools and referencing them here is I think likely to cause problems. Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course these examples are valid and analogous, because they demonstrate how prominent figures in the development of a style, and those important in the historical lineage of a style are valid ground for inclusion.

The claim (mind you, without any references) by Gatoclass that "Kundalini is like Hatha in that is practiced by many different schools" is neither accurate nor true. Before Yogi Bhajan systematized Kundalini yoga into a style that is practiced globally, it did not exist widely in any public school or teaching structure. The correct statement would be:

Kundalini yoga is practiced by very few schools and it a fairly small part of the scope of the entire yoga world. However, raising of kundalini energy is the end result of all schools of yoga, including Hatha. It is particularly studied closely, and named after this form of energy in the system of Kundalini Yoga, of which Yogi Bhajan was the Master teacher and modern founder.

Hatha actually comes from the sutras of Patanjali. Yoga also is written about in the Upanishads and Vedic texts which date back to 1500–1000 BCE. It may have been repackaged, and retaught, and renamed, and called "Ha" "Tha" by Yogi Swatmarama in the 1400's but it is still yoga. The same goes for Kundalini Yoga - and the analogy is very simple: The core teachings will always remain true to Patanjali, but just like as the core founding of Hatha can be traced back to the Hatha Yoga Pradipika written by Svami Svatmarama, so can the core founding of Kundalini Yoga be traced back to Yogi Bhajans' teachings.

Kundalini yoga is very similar to Hatha in the sense that it combines many different practices -- but because it evolves from the highest levels of yoga, it was not widely taught, differed from teacher to teacher, and didn't really have a clearly formal system -- partially due to the fact that it was considered so secret and only passed onto those who proved high-level accomplishment. Yogi Bhajan was one such student (who mastered it at age 16), and who then changed and challenged all of this past history. He drew together all the teachings from seers and sages and from India, brought them to the West and developed them into the style of yoga that is recognized and practiced all over the world as Kundalini Yoga. He basically took something that was a conceptual high-level ephemeral mix of many styles and practices, and developed/revealed it into a systematized school of yoga. Unless you can prove otherwise and demonstrate that another system or school where it is taught widely and spread publicly, you have to assume good faith that Yogi Bhajan is the major and historically singular valid figure in spreading Kundalini Yoga as it is known today to the global consciousness.

If one wanted to make this article better, just look at the Hatha page... On the Hatha Page, there is an origins section which states: [3]

The most comprehensive text of Hatha Yoga is the Hatha Yoga Pradipika by Yogi Swatmarama. This work is nonetheless derived from older Sanskrit texts on Yoga besides Yogi Swatmarama's own yogic experiences. It includes information about shatkarma (purification), asana (postures), pranayama (subtle energy control), chakras (centers of energy), kundalini (instinct), bandhas (muscle force), kriyas (techniques; manifestations of kundalini), shakti (sacred force), nadis (channels), and mudras (symbolic gestures) among other topics.

You could literally say the exact same thing about Kundalini Yoga and just copy-replace "Yogi Sawtmarama" with "Yogi Bhajan", and you would have 90% of the origin of Kundalini Yoga covered, as well as 80% of the style defined. The only notable difference is that what Yogi Bhajan did for Kundalini Yoga in 1968, and the other guy did for Hatha in the 1400's.

Someone else give me an honest neutral 3O opinion here!--Fatehji (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a good story about Yogi Bhajan's early days under his teacher. May help you understand him a bit more of his sacrifices as a yoga teacher. My Teacher's Teacher - Aquarian Times, 2005--Fatehji (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the Third Opinion Wikipedian who issued the Third Opinion set out above on this page. I have removed the {{3O}} tag from this section. Posting the {{3O}} tag does not make a Third Opinion request; please read the text of the tag and see the more detailed explanation and suggestions here. Please do not replace the template until you make a request at the Third Opinion project page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe it would really help to simplify things if some people just a did like 2 second of research before posting. For example, please cite this About.com article on Kundalini Yoga: [4] - Very first paragraph mentions Yogi Bhajan. This article is Medical Board Reviewed and updated as recently as April 11th, 2010.--66.65.62.138 (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan absolutely should be included in this topic. No one would know about Kundalini without Yogi Bhajan. Before his revolutionary unveiling of it in the West, there was no one teaching it publicly anywhere. Any reputable source, book or yogic magazine or journal recognizes Yogi Bhajan as the person who revealed Kundalini yoga to the West. It is of very high encyclopedic validity and very important to be mentioned. 96.246.66.150 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with what Fatehji says. This being the English language Wikipedia, someone coming to the Kundalini article might wonder, "Who popularized Kundalini in the West?" Yogi Bhajan deserves mention here. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that the entry on Kundalini Yoga only mentions Bhajan in passing. People who practive Kundalini Yoga have pictures of Bhajan on the walls. They have special events to mark events in his life/death. He needs to be a big part of the article, because he's a big part of Kundalini Yoga. Also, 3HO needs to be mentioned in the article. Without Bhajan and 3HO there is no Kundalini. This is true whether you view Kundalini as legitimate practice, as a cult, or as a nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ycartreel (talk • contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussing the Ancient History of Kundalini Yoga

Opening up to legitimate sourced and verifiable citations covering the early development of Kundalini yoga. Need more info.--Fatehji (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga appears to be a difficult topic to historically discuss. Many mentions are made of using a variety of yogas whose aim was to facilitate raising kundalini as an energy force within the body [[5]], and kundalini energy raising has been the subject and legitimate end result on the path towards self-realization and enlightenment . However, very little mention can be found of an existing system of "Kundalini Yoga", before the teachings Yogi Bhajan were introduced in 1968. Some books mention it here and there, or offer a "brief study" [[6]], and some teachers offer one-off book or guide that outline a style similar to Raja Yoga, with self-exploratory mental thought exercises being the predominant instruction [[7]], however, as a complete system and school, before Yogi Bhajan laid down the basis of 500+ books and a cohesive system of 10,000+ exercises and meditations (by integrating all of the benefits of Laya, Tantra, Astanga, Raja, Hatha, Bakti, Shakti, and Kriya Yogas and even Eastern-Asian practices), very few examples of "Kundalini+Yoga" exists in my research. Mentions only to Kundalini (again, as energy) are alluded to in the oldest surviving text on Hatha Yoga, The Hath Yoga Pradipika Yoga by Swami Swatmarama, a disciple of Swami Goraknath, who wrote the text in the 15th century CE drawing upon previous texts and his own experiences.--Fatehji (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that there is little if any independent verification of these claims, many of which are of an exceptional nature. There is no verification that Yogi Bhajan was himself a "master" of kundalini yoga, apart from his own testimony. You are claiming he was the first to teach a "comprehensive" system of kundalini yoga, but the kundalini and methods for awakening it have been known about and taught for thousands of years, how likely is it that no teacher before him has taught a comprehensive method?
We cannot base encyclopedic content on unverified or unverifiable claims. A claim can be reported, but it can't be treated as if it were an established fact. Nor can article content be weighted on the basis of such claims. Gatoclass (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "likelyness" has ever been raison d'etre of whether something has happened. How "likely" was it that 100,000 million years of evolution happened reach a point to create someone like you? And who's "we" -- are you qualified to refer to yourself as a position of authority or representing more than one person?--Fatehji (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how "likelyness" has ever been raison d'etre of whether something has happened.
Yes, lots of unlikely things happen. However, per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Claiming that someone only recently developed the first "complete system" for a process that has been known about and taught for thousands of years is obviously an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources, for which none have been provided. Yogi Bhajan's methodology AFAICT is not even accepted by mainstream Sikhs. You personally may be convinced that Yogi Bhajan was the first to ever develop a complete system of kundalini yoga, and you are entitled to your personal view, but you are not entitled to present information in this encyclopedia based upon your personal views or upon the views of a particular organization. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, you have to provide sources for your claims. YOUR claim is exceptional that there is a "a process that has been known about and taught for thousands of years". Known by whom? Taught for how long? Taught by whom? Not accepted by whom? What is a mainstream Sikh have anything to do with yoga? Your denials -- as usual -- raise more questions about your 'stories' than anything else. Where do you get your ideas from? Why don't you do a little research first and see that yes... Yogi Bhajan is the main teacher and the first to popularize a safe and complete methodology of Kundalini yoga. Please try to contain yourself from being a fact twisting denier and do a little research first before you post wild claims.--66.65.62.138 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga is not a subdivision of Hatha Yoga

Please correct this and I will suggest as a Kundalini Yoga practicant and soon to be teacher, to refer to the www.KRI.org whose primary mission is to maintain the teachings and integrity of this ancient technology.

Kundalini Yoga is NOT a subdivision of hatha this is completely misunderstood and wrong. Kundalini yoga is the most complete technology embracing: pranayama, asanas, mudras, mantras, etc, therefore many types of yoga.. it is represented as a diamond, has many cuts, each cut is a type of yoga, but the diamond itself is kundalini yoga.

I find it fair and necessary to inform the people what it REALLY is and not create so much confusion in what it has to offer.. Remember is about experimentation, so if this si not propossed, we understand it was not experienced by someone who is writing it.

Sat Nam

201.230.249.233 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)levtar kaur201.230.249.233 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga is a complete system of yoga that contains: pranayama, asanas, mudras, mantras (and more, etc...). Kundalini Yoga blends specific timed movements, kriyas, breathing, meditations with mantra, and mind yoga, into an experience of yoga as a spiritual science that differs from traditional Hatha Yoga. Each set of exercises and meditations are designed for a specific purpose and healing capacity -- and applied through consistent sadhana practice to ease transformation, increase individual awareness, improve group awareness, and elevate human consciousness.

Would that would be a more correct, clear and also educational clarification?--Fatehji (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No, because it's still presenting kundalini yoga from the POV of the 3HO movement. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
How so? This comes from multiple sources. To refute it you have to provide some alternative sources, you can't just say "no". I have plenty of experience with this style of Yoga, including research of it, reading about it, study of it (from many different view points and books), as well as years of experience and study of many other styles of Yoga. What experience have you? Where is your proof that this style has been practiced for many "1000's of years" in a way that makes it different than described above? This article is confusing and misleading, and totally out of line with other pages on Yoga... Unless you can provide valid alternative descriptions with referenced proofs -- no one can validate any of your refutations. This information is widely available and reference-able if you only look.
It makes little sense to just refute without proof and keep the status quo... and it's worse when done from a standpoint that is uninformed and not interested in advancing the article. It appears Gatoclass has been asked personally at least a few dozen times for proofs and references yet has provided none! Kundalini Yoga is mainstream, and it is openly taught all over the world. Just because one doesn't believe in it ((only one opinion, it seems)), doesn't make the refutations relevant. Millions of vegetarians don't "believe" in eating meat -- that doesn't mean one has to refute meat eating on every chicken, beef and pork page.


Kundalini Yoga, meaning yoga of awareness, is a complete system of integrative yoga which contains: pranayama, asanas, mudras, mantras and meditation that are all combined to raise self-awareness, power, and consciousness - and ultimately self-enlightenment ((taken from several different sources - many references already provided previously)). Traditionally an advanced level of yoga, it was revealed to students one a certain level of self-mastery was attained, and therefore practiced in relative secrecy for many years ((based on history, readings and stories from many teachers, sources have been and will be provided)). This began to change in the 1900's when interest in yoga began to grow and word of kundalini energy was translated and spread in some writings ((ie. Sir John Woodruffs translation of the kundalini energy writings -- please note he did not teach yoga!)). Most notably, in 1968 Yogi Bhajan broke with centuries of tradition and openly began teaching teachers in the West Kundalini Yoga as a public practice and householders yoga, openly providing the experience of the powerful healing properties of the system to the world. ((Not a POV - this is statement of fact, multiple references provided in past.)). Kundalini yoga has now gained worldwide popularity, and is taught globally in many centers ((also fact)).

Kundalini Yoga blends together kriyas that work deeply on the physical body with breath control, meditations with mantra, focus on chakras, control of raising of kundalini energy, and mind yoga Raj Yoga, into an experience of yoga as a technology and spiritual science that differs from traditional branch of Hatha Yoga ((this is true, kundalini yoga is very different than traditional hatha in many respects)). Each set of exercises and meditations are designed for a specific purpose and healing capacity -- which are traditionally applied through consistent sadhana practice to initiate deeper personal transformations, heighten individual awareness, increase group awareness, and elevate human consciousness.

That's a well written and reference-able opener, with historical facts, and also more in line with other yoga pages (i.e. hatha, ashtanga) and in line with several 3rd opinions shown on this talk page. As requested by Wiki, this is a bold change, and cleans up much of the confusion in this article.

After this opener, it would be helpful to have other teacher's views on Kundalini Yoga, as well as some of the information on kundalini energy and how it applies to kundalini yoga. However, just equating kundalini energy with kundalini yoga is very misleading because 1) Kundalini yoga is complete system of yoga build upon Raja yoga, first and foremost, and secondly, 2) kundalini energy is something that can be raised and controlled spontaneously, or through many different practices. In fact, it is little-known that Buddhist monks have their own methods of Kundalini yoga that are practiced at very high levels.--66.65.62.138 (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, that opener is not acceptable at all. It presents kundalini yoga as presented by Yogi Bhajan. That's not what this article is about, we already have a kundalini yoga as taught by Yogi Bhajan article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Dude... How does it do THAT? You are just blatantly twisted. And in either case, what gives you the idea that there is any difference? I've shown many sources. Sikh Yoga, Hindi Yoga, Backwards Yoga, it's all the same yoga. Stop trying to identify what Yogi Bhajan revealed as any different than what it is. Check the hatha page. The first sentence talks about who popularized Hatha yoga. Fact. Same thing with Kundalini Yoga. Fact. It's all Kundalini Yoga. Fact. There's no difference. Fact. End of story. If you seem to know some great mystery that shows otherwise, show it, give proof. Or just get lost and go back to your Marine Ship Yard pages, or whatever it is you have knowledge in. Your opinion here is invalid. You haven't done one ounce of research. Don't post back here until you can contribute something of value.--66.65.62.138 (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini Yoga and physiological "syndromes"

The section [8] within Kundalini yoga with regards to Kundalini syndrome is questionable and in the context of this article needs clarification. There is still absolutely no medical citation backing up any of the physiological claims -- can one find references to "Kundalini syndrome" in a medical textbook? All of the claims are being made by psychologists, not physicians. This could be called quackery unless it can be put into a more relevant context.--66.65.62.138 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

In our article, one of the references cited for 'Kundalini syndrome' is a 1995 paper by Robert Turner et al. in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. This is a scholarly journal of psychopathology that began publication in 1874. The Turner article (1995) explains why a new category was added to the DSM-IV for this class of problem. Per WP:MEDRS, we are to trust what reliable sources have published in peer-reviewed journals. If you know of any more recent peer-reviewed publication that contradicts the findings of Turner et al, please offer it for discussion here. Also, it would be a novel opinion to argue that DSM-IV represents quackery since psychologists contribute to it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
It would seem the above point was attempting to state that this is a page on Yoga, which is a physical discipline, and it could be ambiguous and misleading to quote citations from psychiatric journals discussing Kundalini energy in other forms. It's not that the journal is not peer-reviewed, it's whether it has any relevance on this page about Yoga. This "caution" probably belongs on the kundalini page rather than here -- or most likely, it seems it was previously copied from that page to here by someone who doesn't understand the difference between Yoga and psychology. I would agree I don't see how near death studies and transpersonal psychology is a good source for commenting on yoga. Additionally on review of these articles, there's nothing specifically in them that states the improper use of kundalini yoga (physical) can cause Kundalini syndrome (psycho-pathological). I would suggest this section be improved as it is misleading.
In typical and classic yogic thinking Kundalini represents the dormant creative energy of potential in all things, and more often than not is responsible for the flowering of awareness and compassion in a person who is taking yoga. It should be questioned (in the cited study) how this "energy" is being raised... If it's not specifically through Kundalini Yoga or a study of Yogis (and it doesn't seem that this is explicitly stated) then it probably doesn't belong here. There are already pages on Kundalini syndrome and Kundalini energy where this information is stored.
IMO these are cultural and fringe pathology studies being introduced in an inappropriate setting, and also has some undue weight on this page in terms of it's depth of detail. I'd prefer to hear from yoga teachers on this page, not fringe psychologists. Also, it needs to be qualified somewhere exactly how many people are "suffering" from such things in perspective of how many people benefit from the practice yoga each day. I can't find a quantification that this is as big a number as the amount of people who sprain their ankles or strain their shoulders. So, why is there no warning on that? The Undue weight principle should be considered.--69.38.133.202 (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, no reference to "Kundalini" nor "kundalini syndrome" could be found at Psychiatry Online.com. It should be checked to see if this one paper from 1995 has any current standing in 2010. The DSM journal is often updated, and often removes disorders and frequently changes them. If this syndrome has any standing, it should probably have been corroborated in the last 15 years by at least a few other studies.--69.38.133.202 (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Kundalini syndrome is referenced in plenty of reliable sources. Apart from which, there is probably no more medical evidence for the kundalini per se than there is for kundalini syndrome, so your point is rather moot. Gatoclass (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Which "plenty of sources"??...

1) Provide sources! To just say "plenty of sources" is meaningless. "Plenty" is not a prerequisite for inclusion on Wikipedia. Context is only important.

So, you force me to do the research for you:

A search in the PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health [9] turned up "0" results for Kundalini syndrome.

A further search at the NCBI National Center for Biotechnology Information [10] turned up a scant "3" results.

Of these 3, one referred to "Kundalini experience" in very brief relationship to a paragraph on "mystery syndromes", which on further examination was referenced from a harmless study on muscle relaxation of yogi practitioners. The other referred to Kundalini yoga as a therapeutic practice for relieving Cerebral-Fluid Stasis (i.e. - it was a reference to the benefits of Kundalini yoga, with no mention of any syndrome).

Shall I continue? How about "0" results at WebMD for "kundalini syndrome".

A thin amount of "plenty" for any continuing mention of "Kundalini syndrome" in relationship to Kundalini yoga according to reputable sources of modern medicine.

2) Then, the best part is when you say "no more medical evidence for the kundalini per se than there is for kundalini syndrome". Duh! Perhaps this is the one thing you have said in all of your arguments that is true -- because you finally agree with me. But that doesn't make MY point moot. It makes YOUR point moot. My point all along has been "Kundalini mystery syndrome" should not be included on this article of Kundalini yoga at all because it has no back-up of evidence or critical mass of any sufficient modern medical support at all. Claiming that is has "no medical evidence" doesn't make a case for its inclusion -- Dooohhh!--66.65.62.138 (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with the user (66.65.62.138) in some respects, although not in tone, that there is undue weight given to the 'cautionary observations' section. The section appears patchwork, and the cited sources come from several fields of expertise that do not relate directly to this article. Verification with the most recent version of the DSM Journal of any relationship of Kundalini yoga and stated syndrome would be a viable source, but if not, this section should be modified to reflect that.WilliamExeter (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How WP:UNDUE applies to the inclusion of medical studies... or not.

To say that some viewpoints on Kundalini are fringe or minority viewpoints implies that there is a majority or official understanding of the subject - but this is untrue. Kundalini is an unexplored area and western literature is still in the process of understanding it. These medical studies are not proposing wildly unusual theories of the subject akin to the flat earth theory (see WP:UNDUE). They are medical studies into the effects of kundalini yoga and that makes them relevant. To not include them is denying information to the reader. There is no dispute going on in the western literature against these medical studies so we are not giving them undue weight. A medical study is an enquiry, not a viewpoint. Freelion (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, you are perfectly welcome to include your study in the Sahaja Yoga article, where it belongs. It's too trivial a study to be included here, and its in-house nature also precludes it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Inhouse, where does it say that? Freelion (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It was run by Sahaja Yogis, it was not independent. Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this study is of such a small, minuscule nature in comparison to the beneficial results being brought about by widespread meditation and Kundalini practice, that is is totally negligible. I'm not even sure how Sahaja Yoga and Kundalini yoga relate. However, that does not solve the problem the Gatoclass is attempting to rule this page through his opinion alone, and without any background research as to the modern development of Kundalini yoga. His opinion is wrecking this article, and I would suggest he stick to topics in which he has a willingness to open himself to learning and compromise, or sequester himself to the editing of other articles not related to spirituality and yoga. His one-pointed and uncompromising opinion is creating hardships for other editors. His stories are rarely if ever based on a referenced source. And consistently his comments are based on disinformation and hearsay. 66.65.62.138 (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mostly, Gatoclass practices the incorrect use of the "rules" of Wikipedia to delete, and twist the editing of other editors. Fatehji (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The publication's website (Journal of International Society of Life Information Science) states that the study has been peer reviewed. It was conducted at the Swinburne University’s Psychophysiology Laboratory. The study wasn't run by Sahaja Yogis, but they participated in it as subjects.
Thanks Fatehji and anon for your inputs. I know it might look like I'm really pushing this reference but actually it's just a simple addition which is being resisted. I'm just trying to debate the issue based on the rules. So far we have seen that the reference fits the requirements of reliable sources. It's not unduly self serving as a minority viewpoint. Now we are up to its relevance.
Is it not relevant to an article on kundalini yoga that a scientific study has measured some physical effects of the practice? Freelion (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You trimmed it a bit and re-added it, which is fine. I still think it's a very minor point. Practically irrelevant. Change temperature in the palms? Really? Kundalini Yoga can do so much more... Sitali breath can reduce fever temperatures. Kirtan Kriya improves Alzheimers. There's treatments for schizophrenia, diabetes, tension, stress, and any number of emotional trauma, PTSD, RSI, you name it... And you come up with temperature manipulations in the palms. Seems totally irrelevant (meaning... what are the helpful benefits of doing that?), but I'm not gonna oppose it as long as it remains a minor mention.Fatehji (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it seems a minor effect and it's probably just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the benefits available from kundalini awakening. But what's important is that the effect has been observed and measured in the lab unlike other claims. This shows there's really something going on. Freelion (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
There's so much going on that is being researched... The point is what benefits can you show that are useful? If I want to reduce the temperature of my hands, I'd much rather use cold water or hold onto ice for a few minutes than meditate!66.65.62.138 (talk) 03:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Meditation is for much more important things. :) Bless you.
Thanks, I will explain my point. The effect of coolness on the hands is actually an increase in awareness which allows the practitioner to diagnose the state of their chakras. If particular fingers or parts of the hand are not cool, that indicates a blockage on the related chakra. The importance of this scientific observation is that the coolness is real and not some kind of mind-trick or placebo effect. Freelion (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


Tendentious Editing will be Reported if Constructive Measures not Taken.

Due to reverts being done without discussion on these page, and the consistent POV and tendentious denials by Gatoclass, without attempts of constructive improvements, we are making a final notice of warning on this page.

This article is an encyclopedic article about Kundalini Yoga. It is not an article about Yogi Bhajan. However, it is important to maintain references to Yogi Bhajan because he was the first teacher who revealed the previously secret teachings of Kundalini Yoga and spread it globally outside of India. This fact has been recognized by the Congress and the Senate of the United States as well as numerous additional referenced sources. It is relevant as part of this article because when Yogi Bhajan taught Kundalini Yoga in the US in 1969, there was no other place or format where one could pay a class fee and learn the techniques of the previously carefully guarded Kundalini Yoga. This is completely in line with mentions of other instrumental and groundbreaking yogis on other yoga pages.

The continued POV revisions, and tendentious editing by Gatoclass are going to be reported if he does not approach this page in a constructive way. He has already previously been warned for warring numerous times, and his actions have been brought to his attention[11]. Since then has not made any new efforts to help improve this situation. These actions are not tolerable for any editor of Wikipedia! RogerThatOne72 (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not necessarily opposed to mention of Yogi Bhajan's school in this article. What I am opposed to is the presentation of Kundalini Yoga entirely from the Yogi Bhajan POV - and especially when that POV is inserted in the intro.
If you want to add a section about Yogi Bhajan's school, presented in an appropriately NPOV manner and without the addition of exceptional claims, that might be acceptable. What is not acceptable is to turn this into a de facto Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan page. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be getting other editors to look at this page. We are getting to the root of your misunderstanding, which is a good, but you are still not assuming good faith. Your POV is that Yogi Bhajan's "school" is something different than what is the Yogic Science of Kundalini Yoga. It is not. I have sourced many other books, teachers and writers in this article in numerous places, and Yogi Bhajan's teaching of Kundalini Yoga are "by the book", as it were. Your misunderstanding is coming from the fact that Yogi Bhajan consolidated his teachings, and it was called the "Teachings of Yogi Bhajan" to protect the integrity of what he taught publicly so that it was not abused when he was gone. He did not create any other Masters in his wake, so this was important to preserve the teachings, being this was the first time they were shared openly. That's all that means.

I have not made any exceptional claims that are not substantiated. All of what is included is valuable encyclopedic reference especially for the intro, because it reflects an important turning point in the history of Kundalini Yoga. In the past, in India one would have to wait ages and attain the highest ranking to receive one highly protected Kriya. Yogi Bhajan revealed hundreds of Kriyas freely to anyone at any level. This in fact was exceptional and unprecedented in this time, regardless of how recently it occurred!

It is not "exceptional" either to claim that Yogic kriyas are deeply healing and transformational yogic practices. Unless you are familiar with Yogic Science, you could not understand this. This is NOT something that is unique to Yogi Bhajan. It is common yogic knowledge through all 22 schools of yoga that kriyas provide a wide variety of healing effects and powers. This is becoming very widely accepted now by Western medical practices and in widespread culture as evidenced in many ongoing studies.

So, I rest that I have in no way created this page as a "de facto" KYTBYB page. The language is fair and neutral. Now moving on, and regardless of the intro, this page needs lots of work, and much more needs to be done to bring this up to par. Please pull your finger off the undo trigger for a little while and if you cannot work with me to make this article better, then leave it alone... I am on the quest of finding more capable, informed and willing editors for contributions to help make improvements. Continue to undo this page without assuming good faith, and you will be reported, as you have warned you numerous times. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not sufficient to make claims about a universally recognized "Yogic Science" without sources. Likewise your claims about Yogic kriyas. As far as I am aware these claims are confined to the Yogi Bhajan school, I've certainly never encountered them anywhere else. If you continue to revert, I will be asking for action to be taken against you. It is not acceptable to try and use Wikipedia as a promotional vehicle for a particular organization. Gatoclass (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. That was your last warning. It's obvious you have no experience with yoga, and have never done any research on Kundalini Yoga. I don't know why exactly you continue to be in denial of Yogi Bhajan, or have a particular bias against him. Now you are in the realm of denying history based completely only on your fundamental ignorance of the subject matter. You have never added ONE WORD of editing to this page, and you have consistently removed ANYTHING related to a mention of Yogi Bhajan completely and selectively[12]. Your claims are all based on POV. You are being reported for tendentious editing to the dispute resolution board. Your actions are very disruptive. 66.65.62.138 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Gatoclass you cannot use ignorance as original research. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the content is undue here, and Wikipedia isn't the place for Yogi Bhajan promotion. —SpacemanSpiff 16:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
That's fine, but it's not intended to be a promotion. It's historically relevant that he exposed this style of yoga to the West, and in effect broke open thousands of years of secrecy around the subject. It would not be taught in class rooms anywhere without him, and never was before him. If you check every other style of yoga page(s), you see historically significant Masters associated with the style prominently in the leader paragraph. While your opinion is welcome, I do not see that it accounts for historical relevance simply by eliminating any mention of Yogi Bhajan. We're open to rewording his mention without being considered promoting. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add this content back without establishing consensus on why it's important or relevant here. Also, there's no reason to include where 3HO teaches anything. —SpacemanSpiff 17:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This is clear spamming by RogerThatOne72 and their IP sock. Using the 3HO website as a reference for where they teach. —SpacemanSpiff 17:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Hunh? Please don't knee-jerk react to changes. I have neutralized the mention of schools, and 3HO is not mentioned anywhere. How is this spam? Where do you even get that? Do you come from the POV school of thought that only Hindus practice Kundalini yoga? What is your basis for jumping to conclusions here? Consensus is irrelevant if you are simply in denial of the historical significance of Kundalini Yoga because you don't like it. Hindus would rather keep yoga obscure and localized. This is a common but incorrect and POV thought pattern which comes from some sections of India. I see in your talk pages you already have some bias on such topics. Help me understand your POV so we can resolve it... And what's a IP Sock?? [13]. --RogerThatOne72 (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
If you can not understand why "Today, it is openly taught worldwide, and is considered a powerful healing modality with an ever growing range of benefits.<>Kundalini Community Locations Worldwide Kundalini Community Locations Worldwide<> "is spamming in favor of 3HO, then I don't think I can help much. —SpacemanSpiff 17:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
You know, you're not taking a very kind route to your replies. I thought the main tenets of Wikipedia were to 1) Assume Good Faith and 2) To Have Fun. You are practicing neither of these in your communications with me by assuming the I am spamming on the basis of promotion. This is generally the kind of non-constructive tone that creates strife and harms progress on this site.
That being said, I certainly think based on your recommendation that this line can be cleared up. I do think that in historical significance, it is relevant that Yogi Bhajan 1) freed this yoga form secrecy, and 2) spread this style globally. The link provided was simply to substantiate that yes, it is global (and thus was one of the only links available to a page listing most of the global locations). If you are opposed to this, I think it can be re-worded, and perhaps another source found that would appear less closely associated with a particular school. Or maybe it needs no reference, because it is assumed common knowledge? I'm not sure. Is that OK? --RogerThatOne72 (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The first response from Gatoclass clearly illustrates why this content shouldn't be presented the way it is. Beyond that, once you start using non-reliable sources like about.com and 3HO (which is a primary source) to justify your additions, it is clearly POV and spamming. An assumption of good faith requires good faith edits, not the kind shown here. Find good quality reliable sources that state these things and we can have a discussion on the content, not before that. And just taking a look at the pages of Harbhajan Singh Yogi and 3HO is testament to the fact that no one can accomplish anything on these articles. —SpacemanSpiff 19:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to respond here, there are plenty of articles that are very poorly sourced, and some not at all that have been sitting around for years like that [14]. Gatoclass was never being helpful with specific comments or changes because he knows nothing about the subject matter. I do think there's a good range of references being presented here for the time being, and it's being constantly added to. _RogerThatOne72 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

let's all calm down a bit and look at this reasonably. I {{peacock}}ed this page because I think it's making some very grandiose statements about kundalini in general, and the whole article needs to be toned down a bit. let's start with that, shall we? --Ludwigs2 21:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Looking at other Wiki featured articles for ideas, there are ways to "vanilla-ify" the leader to Wiki's "lite" standards of simplicity. But at the same time a lot more work still needs to be done to flesh out the body - this subject is deep and wide. I have plenty of resources, so part of it is fitting it all into a better template to do this very rich topic justice.
Note that Kundalini yoga does have an exceptional cultural role. It literally describes a tested and tried 2,500+ year old method of shaping a human being into unification with the Soul and God consciousness - so this is no "yoga-light" subject. It is literally the pinnacle of yogic technology. Even at the highest levels, this subject lends itself to many people each having their own unique expression of it. (How does one describe the path to God consciousness?) Once you start getting into it - like a fast moving river - it grows deep right from the shore. _RogerThatOne72 (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding the purpose of Wikiepdia. This is an encyclopedia, and as such it tries to take an even-handed, neutral perspective on every topic. It limits itself to informing people of things. While I don't personally disagree with your assessment of KY, you clearly have a proactive interest in the topic, and you are clearly trying to go beyond the effort to 'inform' and are trying to 'convince', and that is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. do you understand what I'm saying? --Ludwigs2 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
RogerThatOne is continually making tendentious edits, conflating Kundalini Yoga with Kundalini Yoga as Taught by Yogi Bhajan and adding contentious claims such as that Yogi Bhajan first brought KY to the West. This really has to stop. I am considering taking this to AN/I and asking for a page ban because there is little evidence that RTO is interested in complying with Wikipedia policies. Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Gato, the point of this exercise is to make a decent encyclopedia article, not to beat each other over the head with policies. One or some or all of the editors on this page are missing that point, otherwise there wouldn't be a dispute. So, who do you think brought KY to the west, and what sources do you have on that point? that's the way to handle disputes like this - if you disagree, stop arguing and go see what the sources say.
All I really know about the issue is that there's a lot of overblown language in the article - I'm in no position to judge on content. But I'm happy to help you sort through the sourcing and content issues i you jsut give me an idea of the factual bases of the dispute. --Ludwigs2 09:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Ludwig, I'm hardly an expert on this topic but there are obvious problems with RTO's edits. For one thing, he continually claims that Yogi Bhajan brought the "previously secret" teachings of Kundalini Yoga to the West for everyone to benefit from for the first time. But the kundalini has been known and written about in the West since at least the 1930s.
Another problem is that Yogi Bhajan's kundalini yoga method is not exactly mainstream - for one thing, he's a Sikh, and kundalini is a Hindu tradition, for another, he sidelined the traditional shaktipat method of obtaining kundalini awakening in favour of awakening by hatha yoga and other methods, and finally, he employed what appears to be a unique definition of kriya to mean a set of exercises one can do to attain a certain object - like treatments for certain illnesses and so on. YB apparently published thousands of different kriyas of this type. But in Hindu tradition, "kriya" just means either a devotional action, or a spontaneous psycho-physical event which occurs as a result of the kundalini. What RTO and other followers of YB's teachings are essentially doing is trying to replace the more traditional teachings on Wikipedia with YB's apparently unique teachings. That obviously raises issues of WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 13:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yogi Bhajan tagged the west coast in 1968.

Sri Chinmoy tagged the east coast in 1964.

Jung tagged Zurich in 1932. They all deserve plenty of column inches. 78.149.133.7 (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but Gatoclass is 100% bunk, because he is really incorrect in his assumptions, and he has never included any references for his made up claims. There's not one thing in his paragraph above that is true, nor is it verifiable in anyway. Until such time that he can substantiate any of this, his words are nothing but wrenches thrown into this article. (edited) +RogerThatOne72 (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
OK Ludwig. Here are the Facts: 1) Strictly objectively, in 1968-69 Yogi Bhajan came to the west and began teaching Kundalini Yoga classes in the structure they are taught today. Before this there was no way to learn Kundalini Yoga in a class setting publicly. This has been acknowledged both by the US Congress Honorarium for Yogi Bhajan and his NYTimes Obit posthumously - two pretty good sources. Now, it is up to gatoclass - before he reverts this page again - to factually present a case where another teacher was widely spreading Kundalini Yoga teachings in the west (not just writing about Kundalini energy or penning one book on Kundalini Yoga - two totally different things) before this time. (edited) +RogerThatOne72 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
And in response to Gatoclass... What does this mean "Yogi Bhajans' method is not exactly mainstream"? Kundalini yoga by its very application and history is not mainstream. But if you were to say what is considered mainstream kundalini yoga today, then you would have to say the yoga that was brought to the west through yogi bhajan is the most widely practiced and spread origin of teachings, and therefore, most "mainstream". (edited)+RogerThatOne72 (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Another point. Yoga is not a religion. Yogi Bhajan's religious background has no effect on the authority of yoga. To claim that he is a Sikh and therefore not somehow in line with the "Hindu" tradition of Kundalini yoga is 1) discriminatory, and 2) total misappropriation of yoga as belonging to the religion of Hinduism. There is no religious ownership of Yoga, my friend. Sorry, but you are way off on that viewpoint.
Then you claim yogi bhajan favored hatha metods over Hindu shaktipad methods is just so wrong I don't know where to start. First of all, shakipad is not by any means the only method of raising kundalini. This a brahmanian fallacy. nor is it strictly hindu in origin. secondly, yoga bhajan was a hatha master as well as a kundalini master, but he didn't teach hatha, ever. so I don't know where you get your "info", but since you don't back it up, then obviously it must be what it appears to be: hearsay. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Finally on your assertion about Kriyas, please look at this link: [15]. It's a very simple 7-point description of Kriya Yoga. Kundalini yoga is a combination of many things and "kriyas", which actually means "completed action/set" are part of it. On these 7 points both Yogi Bhajan and Yogananda aligned very transparently. It is part of how Yoga sadhana works, and it is how healthy glands are developed, kundalini energy harnessed, and the nervous system strengthened in order to contain it. This is nothing complicated and you would find not only from Yogi Bhajan but also from Goswami, Yogananda, and many other spiritual yogis. +RogerThatOne72 (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
We can start from an earlier point for edits. More recent versions contained good references - and a would be a more neutral place from where to make corrections. +RogerThatOne72 (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that you should mention Kriya Yoga as a form of kundalini yoga that supposedly supports Yogi Bhajan's methodology. Kriya Yoga was brought to the West by Paramahansa Yogananda in the 1920s. How then can you claim that Yogi Bhajan was the first to bring kundalini yoga to the West? Gatoclass (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Sigh... What you fail to understand is there's two "kundalini yogas". One is a noun and one is a type of adjective. "Kundalini Yoga" as a noun was systematized and brought to the USA by Yogi Bhajan - just like Kriya Yoga was a name for Yogananda's teachings that he systematized. BUT LOOKOUT... ALL YOGA USES KRIYAS AND ALL YOGA RAISES KUNDALINI! So, any yoga you do... ANY yoga can be considered a kundalini yoga (lower case), if it's targeted to raise energy in the body. All "kundalini" in this sense means is developing your inner strength to be the best you can be. That's all it means. It's not complicated. Just replace the word "kundalini" with "inner strength" or "awareness" in your head.
So, the fact is, on a page where you are giving a description of "Kundalini Yoga", there has to be explanations of both "Kundalini Yoga" (caps) - to most people this is understood as the yoga system introduced by Yogi Bhajan - and the "kundalini" (lower case, i.e. "awareness") that is developed through any and all yoga practice. 66.65.62.138 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Revert no Good

Sorry, but the revert by SpacemanSpiff to this early point in the article is heading backwards. [16]. It presents an older version in the frame of reference according to Brahman Hindu beliefs, however, it doesn't serve yoga objectively right if it is presented "according to" any religion. This page was better towards a way of improving the page long ago and underwent many improvements since this post. This is not constructive, considering the additional references, research and updates added into this page. An earlier point would be a better starting point for improvements. +RogerThatOne72 (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reconcile, your constant removal of the very small mention and reference to Yogi Bhajan in this article, with the prominence of a teacher noted in the article of kriya yoga. And please explain, without bias, and clearly, in this context why these are different, and how. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly because that material doesn't belong in the lede, there's mention of Yogi Bhajan elsewhere in the article and that suffices. You and your socks have been pushing the name and links across the board using self published or primary sources. —SpacemanSpiff 17:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You are just not answering the question. It's bordering on retarded talking to you, but I'll try again... First, Put your reading glasses on - there is no other mention of the main teacher, master and school of kundalini yoga in this article. (Because every single reference always get deleted by you, or some other puppet).
So, please answer:
1) how do you reconcile this page with the karma yoga page?
2) Being that there is a huge section of people who practice Kundalini yoga as taught by Yogi Bhajan, and they all call it "Kundalini yoga", then where IS the place for it as an encyclopedic article? Seriously... RogerThatOne72 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I don't think you even read this stuff, you just knee-jerk delete anything reference do with Yogi Bhajan. You probably didn't even read the sentence it was contained in before deleting it. I get your game. It's cute. Avoid answering anything, reading anything, and then report me when I make changes. Very nice. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK until you answer these questions and establish that you don't have a conflict of interest, which I believe you do, then your reverts are no good.RogerThatOne72 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Fatehji, you've been to ANI and back, start socking and then ask the same questions at talk pages and get answers. You've got to stop this. I'm reverting this once more, unless you establish consensus for adding these claims as relating to Yogi Bhajan you're not going to add them here, per WP:BRD. —SpacemanSpiff 05:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
And more importantly, you haven't any of the comments from the above section. —SpacemanSpiff 05:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I am not using a sock, first of all, so please stop using that as an excuse to just wholesale revert a lot of work that went into making this page more complete. I have explained that I sometimes forget to sign in, and my IPS match. Also, I recently got a new computer, so I changed all my user names and passwords. So, yes, I am both Fatehji and RogerThatOne I WAS Fatehji, and I am now RogerThatOne72. (i.e. There is no user switching after a set time & date) RogerThatOne72 (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

So, it's not socking if you know it's me and I'm not flipping around user accounts deliberately. End of discussion. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Secondly, you have not answered any of the questions above nor discussed any of the content before reverting, so, I am reverting back. It would be nice if you explained your reasons for reverting material specifically point by point. I believe you to have a conflict of interest, which you did not defend so I will assume it to be true. Please take a clue from the last guy who edited. A person who did it with care for the material and a general and neutral understanding of improving the article, not just deleting what you don't like. It's more appropriate if you let the material settle for a bit and allow that last guy or another editor to take a look at it before you knee-jerk revert again. It's said in the guidelines that you should "Avoid the revert stage for as long as possible". What you are doing is not a proactive, neutral approach. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Basically, as I see it, I don't believe you are genuinely interested in this page.RogerThatOne72 (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
So, Spaceman, you send your cohort Gatoclass to revert the page when you didn't want to? Seems fishy that he would suddenly reappear and insta-revert on the same day I made my changes after many months of not being around. Speaking of socking and collusion, you two are not following good editorial rules. Neither of you have ever demonstrated any genuine interest in the article. You must allow other interested editors to review the material before you insta-revert again. +RogerThatOne72 (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup - May 2011

General simplification and clean up of leader. Cleaner language, but existing concepts retained. New "Definitions" Section to break down different approaches and viewpoints. General clean-ups to body and History section (re: relevance). To be expanded in time. + RogerThatOne72 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision - June 2011

On June 3rd, undo of a senseless revision by Gatoclass citing: "(reverted to last version by The Ringess - for the last time, this is not the Yogi Bhajan article)" ... I could not even find this version by Ringess in the last 100 edits -- covering over a year of edits. Additionally, there is nothing in this article that makes this a page about Yogi Bhajan. It is clearly about Kundalini Yoga, and only uses Yogi Bhajan - a legitimate authority on the Yoga form - as one of many sources. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Oral Tradition History

Looking to add to the last sentence: ", yet some oral traditions date Kundalini yoga as far as back as 5,000 years ago, and by some accounts perhaps even earlier." Looking for references besides just those online. + RogerThatOne72 (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why it was deleted on June 26th, but I'm retaining the paragraph in the History section here to be discussed:

"Perhaps the earliest known written mention of Kundalini Yoga is in the Yoga-Kundalini Upanishad, which is the eighty-sixth among the 108 Muktika Upanishads, associated with the Krishna Yajurveda, originating from India. The origin of this particular writing is difficult to substantiate because scholars disagree about the exact dates of the composition of the Upanishads, but agree that all Upanishads have been passed down through oral tradition. Some have estimated that the composition of the Yajurveda texts date as far back as between 1,400 and 1,000 BC."

Is the info in this paragraph relevant? I believe it is important to knowing about the first written "instructions" of how to raise Kundalini. But perhaps less relevant to the yoga of today. Perhaps it is a run-on and that's why someone deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerThatOne72 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I see value in it too. As an undescribed, anonymous deletion coming from an IP with no history it's not distinguishable from vandalism so I'm going to undo it. K2709 (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Biased Editing

I'm opposed to biased editing by user Gatoclass. This user has never shown an interest in article improvement, yet, every month or so, he "checks in" for the wholesale removal of any trace of Yogi Bhajan from this article. At the same time, he leaves in all the other edits and names. Clearly, biased vandalism... Undone, with edits. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to reiterate a couple of quotes from an earlier discussion thread:

This being the English language Wikipedia, someone coming to the Kundalini article might wonder, "Who popularized Kundalini in the West?" Yogi Bhajan deserves mention here. –Morganfitzp. 21:43, 28 September 2010
I find it bizarre that the entry on Kundalini Yoga only mentions Bhajan in passing. People who practice Kundalini Yoga have pictures of Bhajan on the walls. They have special events to mark events in his life/death. He needs to be a big part of the article, because he's a big part of Kundalini Yoga. Also, 3HO needs to be mentioned in the article. Without Bhajan and 3HO there is no Kundalini. This is true whether you view Kundalini as legitimate practice, as a cult, or as a nothing. —Ycartreel. 18 October 2010.

RogerThatOne72 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi RogerThatOne, assuming Kundalini Yoga has been around for thousands of years, I feel that by saying all of the above you are really just promoting Yogi Bhajan's version of kundalini yoga. In this respect I agree with Gatoclass that you are turning this article into a de-facto "kundalini yoga according to Yogi Bhajan" article. Yogi Bhajan deserves a mention but this has to be in the context of the history of kundalini yoga. Freelion (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Freelion. This is RTO72. I can't really value your argument because I am the only person who has added significantly to this page for over a year. I have made over 100 different edits trying to find a suitable language that does not turn this into a "de-facto" page by Yogi Bhajan. I have drawn upon many different books and resources from many different sources, teachers and perspectives. Yogi Bhajan is one of them. And, in terms of popular culture around this topic, it just actually appears in the West that Yogi Bhajan literally "wrote the book" on Kundalini Yoga. Being this is a Western website, I have attempted to make the language fair on all points, but I am always pitted against those who would like to do one thing: Completely remove any input around the topic provided by Yogi Bhajan from this page (and neither contribute further, nor discuss those changes). How does that make sense? My constructive attempts at every level have been consistently being blocked, and much of the reactionary language is laced with fears, biases or direct character assassinations (like those in the topic below). Unless you have progressive suggestions and solutions backed by reasonable research, I cannot agree with you. - RogerThatOne72RogerThatOne72 (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

3HO Is a Sikh Religious Movement and a Possible Cult

Please excuse me if I have done this incorrectly but this is my first posting on a Talk Page. I came to this article because I was interested in classical Kundalini Yoga. I was surprised to see a discussion of Yogi Bhajan, who founded the 3HO group apparently. I remember this group from years ago, and I always considered it to be a flakey New Age religious group at best, possibly a cult. According to the Wikipedia article on 3HO, it is not Hindu, it is Sikh - and renegrade Sikh at that, as a Google search will show. All the usual accusations of a cult are easy to find: obsession with power, sexual wrongdoing, self-inflation, etc. Therefore, I must ask why all this attention is being given on this page to Yogi Bhajan.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3HO IMHO, the article on Kundalini Yoga should discuss classical Hindu Kundalini Yoga from an historical POV. Since 3HO is not Hindu and a probable cult, it should not be included on this page. If you want to discuss an authentic Western response to Kundalini Yoga, why not include Jung's famous seminars on this topic instead of Yogi Bhajan, who appears to have been another nutcase like Franklin Jones (Da Avabhasa), the founder the notorious Daaist Communion..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethian (talk • contribs) 19:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a good point Sethian and one which has been previously made on this talk page. Personally I don't know why this article exists separately from the article on Kundalini. Kundalini Yoga is only a means to awaken Kundalini afterall. However it seems that followers of Yogi Bhajan believe that the term "kundalini yoga" is owned by the 3HO movement. So this article has evolved to its present state of a defacto "kundalini yoga according to YB" article. Sethian, if you could put in some references to the history of classical kundalini yoga, that would definitely help add some context. Freelion (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is SLAM, and a nasty negative character assassination attempt and POV. First of all, there is NO MENTION OF RELIGION or 3HO on this page. It is quite ludicrous to listen to these second hand stories and bias.
If you have other authors, refernces and practical historical sources you would like to add to enrich this perspective, rather than hearsay which only serves to slander the contributions of others, you are welcome to discuss first here, and add those.
I have worked hard to source many other teachers here, including Goswami, Shivananda, Maheshwarananda, and others, and I have discovered there is overlap in all these perspectives in line with Yogi Bhajans teachings and I have worked hard to make the descriptions very practically compatible in all ways. At this point, the contributions of clearly the most influential modern teacher on this subject have been already shaved down to ONE Paragraph! Enough is enough. If you have a further difference of opinion, that is something we can discuss here. Please avoid future negative attacks, bias, POV, Second hand knowledge, and personal research. RogerThatOne72 (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted some more promotional content about Yogi Bhajan, per the above discussion. If content like this is reincluded, I will be taking the matter further. Gatoclass (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop threatening the editors of this page. You have no background in this subject, and an obvious deep and singular bias against Yogi Bhajan. You're not welcome to edit this page because you do not discuss changes... ever, contribute... ever, compromise... ever, and you do not heed the majority of voices who have reached consensus around the evolution of this already highly vanilla version... +RogerThatOne72 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
You're the one that needs to step back, for quite a few years you and your socks have been adding this 3HO POV and undue material and bring out dubious arguments about everyone else not contributing properly. The clean up has been discussed way too much already. —SpacemanSpiff 03:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Step back? Is that the way Wikipedia suggests you speak to editors who contribute their time to articles? Accusing people of using socks and lying doesn't help anyone. Again, read the below... As the saying goes: "unless you have something positive to add..."... RogerThatOne72 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kundalini_yoga/Archive_3&oldid=1190243002"