Talk:Gangaji/Archive 1

Old comments

It would be good if someone created a sub-section for "Gangaji's students" or so, with a brief list of those who awakened in her wake. (can't do it, am europe-based) Aki-108 08:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Does she have a connection to Andrew Cohen? Andries 23:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • No, definitely not. I'm not here very often, greetings, Aki-108 18:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe that there is a connection i.e. she and Cohen had the same guru, but Cohen broke with the guru. Gangaji not, but I may misremember. Source: Andre van der Braak "Englightenment Blues"Andries (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of POVing in this article. It reads like her website bio. Also, no mention is made of the scandal involving her husband and a former student. Jgw 02:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you can find the scandals listed in a reputable source, feel free to quote them. Sethie 04:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to make the article more neutral. Sethie 04:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited and improved reference to the scandal based on internet research and information I received from persons inside the organization.--Brokenarch 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC) I realize these changes, however, do not conform to Wikipedia standards and anyone is thus free to remove the information about "Gangaji Today".

Relationship to Andrew Cohen?

In reference to the question above about Gangaji's relationship to Cohen, just noted, several published, attributable sources do assert that Gangaji was at first associated with Cohen and contradict the history given in her autobiography where no mention is made of this and instead her husband Eli is given the credit for introducing her to Papaji. According to both pupblished authors Luna Tarlo (in The Mother of God) and Andre van der Braak in (Enlightenment Blues) Gangaji had been a student of Andrew Cohen's and then left him in the early 1990s and got involved with Poonja (Papaji). Tarlo writes on page 286: "But the fact was, Poonja couldn't stand being criticized either. And he had shown himself to be a hypocrite. For example, I heard that he told a former student of Andrew's, now called Gangaji, and presently operating successfully as a guru out of Hawaii, that he had been waiting for her, too, all his life and as he'd said, after teaching Andrew, he was ready to die!". And on pages 101-2 of his book, van der Braak wrote, "The widening gap between Andrew's new teaching and Advaita Vedanta doesnt go unnoticed by the spiritual seekers who come to satsang. Many of them come expecting to find a teacher of enlightenment who will give them a profound spiritual experience. Instead they're told off about their lack of willingness to change themselves. Many people perceive this as a kind of moralizing they can do without, and decide to go to the source itself, and visit Poonja in India, as do some of the students who've been sent away from the community by Andrew. To their relief, and to Andrew's displeasure, they recieve a warm welcome there. Some of them, having received Poonjaji's enlightenment, are sent back to the West to teach others. The most important of these is an American woman named Antoinette Varner, who had been with Andrew in satsang for a few months before going off to see Poonja. Poonjaji gives her the name Gangaji and sends her off to teach in the places that Andrew has just been teaching.". See Kaslev's highly respected Khepher Site article on Gangaji [1] for details. Multiple published accounts from attributable sources contradicting Gangaji's version of how she came to Papaji are just one part of the controversy surrounding Gangaji and her claims. --Dseer (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, in her autobiography, Gangaji openly describes how she and Eli met an "American teacher" in California "who had absolute confidence in what he was saying" and "who says he is enlightened" who'd mentioned he'd been with a guru from Lucknow, India, but when Gangaji asked for his guru's name, the American teacher refused to give the name. So Gangaji checked a copy of a book written by this American teacher and found the name, H.W.L. Poonja. However, by this time, Eli was already in Lucknow, India looking for a guru and Gangaji passed along the name to Eli in a telephone call. Eli located Poonja in Lucknow and spent a month with him. Eli then returned to Maui and arranged for travel back to India so Gangaji could meet Poonja. - Cantamagda (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Whitewashing Gangaji

NPOV is not taking Gangaji's assertions at face value and discounting what her guru said about his telling her among at least 50 others she was enlightened:

David Godman interviews Papaji:

David: “You used to give experiences to a lot of people. Why did you do it if you knew that the effect would not be permanent?” Papaji: “I did it to get rid of the leeches who were sticking to me, never allowing me to rest or be by myself. It was a very good way of getting rid of all these leeches in a polite way. I knew that in doing this I was giving lollipops to the ignorant and innocent, but this is what these people wanted. When I tried to give $100 bills to them, they rejected them. They thought that they were just pieces of paper. So I gave them lollipops instead. David: Many of the people you gave lollipops to left Lucknow thinking that they were enlightened. Does the fact that they accepted the lollipop and left indicate that they were not worthy to receive the $100 bills? Papaji: “If one is not a holy person, one is not worthy to receive the real teaching. Many people think that they have attained the final state of full and complete liberation. They have fooled themselves, and they have fooled many other people, But they have not fooled me. A person in this state is like a fake coin. It may look like the real thing. It can be passed around and used by ignorant people who use it to buy things with. People who have it in their pocket can boast of having a genuine coin, but it is not real. It has no value. When it is finally discovered to be a fake, the person who is circulating it, claiming that it is real, is subject to the penalties of the law. In the spiritual world, the law of karma catches up and deals with all people who are trafficking in fake experiences. I have never passed on the truth to those whom I could see were fake coins. These people may look like gold and they may glitter like gold, but they have no real value. There are many people who can put on a show and fool other people into believing they are enlightened.”

Godman also says: In the vast majority of cases these experiences were temporary. I often wondered why Papaji was so enthusiastic about these temporary experiences, and many other people felt the same way. Lots of people asked him about this, but I don't know anyone who got a straight answer, including me. When I asked him about this phenomenon, he said that he lived in the silence and that when silence spoke, it always said the most appropriate thing, even though it might not be factually accurate. He added, "I have spent all my life in that silence. I have learned to trust what it says." Implicit in this statement is a recognition that Papaji is sometimes telling people that they are enlightened when he can see clearly that they are not. He trusted the source of these statements, but he could never give a good explanation of why the silence was making him say these things.

Furthermore, Ramanashram does not endorse Gangaji's claims of an enlightened lineage, and also warns of wannabe gurus.

Eli's claimed enlightenment followed by spiritual betrayal may be considered OK by Gangaji, but it is what it is, and supports Papaji's assertions about the two of them.

--Dseer (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dseer,

Your Godman/Papaji interview does not mention Gangaji by name. If he is referring to Gangaji, it's beyond the scope of this Wikipedia article as to what he is subtly saying in regard to enlightenment.

Ramana Maharshi did not authorize that Ramanashram editorial or your interpretation of it.

You've provided no reference to support your view that Gangaji or Eli claim to be enlightened any more than they claim not to be. Your reference which you assert Eli claims enlightenment does not say any such thing. Furthermore, "enlightenment" is not the subject of this Wikipedia article.

Gangaji's husband and his affair are not the subject of this Wikipedia.

How to pick a guru is not the subject.

Do not confuse your controversy over Eli and what's enlightenment and who is or isn't with this Wikipedia article. Cantamagda (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is you who are confused. The above statements are all twisted interpretations you have made to justify tendacious editing. It is all sourced and all relevant to Gangaji's claims which are the sole source of her notability. Of course, that is why you oppose adding criticism so much. --Dseer (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying it's all sourced and relevant doesn't make it so. For example, you repeatedly inserted into the article that her husband claimed to be enlightened. But not only did your alleged reference (http://members.chello.nl/whessel/connection/23eli.htm) expressly say otherwise by directly quoting Eli as saying "There is no one who is enlightened or unenlightened," but just as importantly, this Wikipedia article is not about her husband nor is it a treatise on enlightenment nor the place for nonduality word games. If you're going to claim her claims are the source of her notability, why haven't you quoted a single one of her claims? Not even one. Instead, you ramble about half-quoting other people who don't even mention her name. --Cantamagda (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tendacious Editing

It appears Gangaji advocate insists on twisting sources to imply what they do not, refusing to acknowledge that Gangaji's claims are not endorsed by her guru or Ramanashram. More neutral editors are needed.--Dseer (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to allege "Gangaji's claims are not endorsed" then you are obliged to quote those claims you allege from her own mouth in context. You have not cited a single one nor have you established that "her guru or Ramanashram" have said anything which does not endorse what she says except in your twisted out of context interpretation. --Cantamagda (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You have only provided self-serving assertions and twisted quotes clearly out of context to support your biased interpretations. In a controversy section, sourced controversies merely have to be asserted, they don't even have to be actually true.--Dseer (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Biographies of living people are to be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Statements asserted as fact must be demonstrable as fact, with documentation, in non-partisan manner, from reliable third-party sources. Claims, for example, that someone "concealed" facts or that something is "officially disputed" are going to be held to strict standards. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality; self-published websites should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Disproportionate amount of space to critics will not be permitted. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article. Derogatory information that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet required standards, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source will be removed and may not be re-inserted. These principles apply to the article itself as well as to this discussion page. If you want to write a tabloid, go somewhere else. --Cantamagda (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources show Papaji's statements are what they are and it is absurd for Gangaji (or you) to claim support for a lineage from a guru that denies any western followers were enlightened. The sources show the Ramanashram editorial is what is is and Ramanashram is not and never has endorsed Gangaji's interpretations or her setting herself up as a guru. The burden is on Gangaji's assertions of realization, not Ramanashram to specifically mention Gangaji's claims among many wannabe gurus. Gangaji can make all the claims she wants, but controversies and critical POVs must also be mentioned. Your minimization of criticism serves her well. --Dseer (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Try a dictionary. Lineage and endorsement are not synonymous. For one, Gangaji doesn't claim Ramana Maharshi's endorsement. Obviously, the man died when she was a child. In that regard, any such controversy over Ramana Maharshi's endorsement is fabricated and illegitimate. Yet, even the Ramanashram editorial you cite says: "Bhagavan does work in mysterious ways and he does directly instruct many of his devotees in silence and secret." Therefore, in that sense, though she's not claiming it, who is to say Ramana Maharshi does not endorse Gangaji?

As to Papaji, even if Papaji were to have claimed in one or many interviews that his followers aren't enlightened, that doesn't eliminate the fact that he's said otherwise at other times, including having spoken affirmatively of a lineage from himself to her as daughter, as well as a lineage from Ramana to himself to Gangaji, and instructing Gangaji year after year to speak and awaken people and how he was pleased with her devotion.

A father-daughter relationship is a lineage. A teacher-student relationship is a lineage, even if the teacher sometimes says it's not. Even a lie passed from person to person has a lineage. Lineage is a relationship. The Ramanashram editorial doesn't deny a lineage. Rather, it unequivocally affirms it: "Each of us legitimately can claim lineage from Bhagavan... To think of Bhagavan automatically entitles us to a relationship with him... Since we each are recipients of Bhagavan’s grace, we are all in the lineage." You chose to omit these words in your quote.

Gangaji's message/realization is not about "her" message/realization or "her" assertions in a superior, exclusive, dogmatic or authoritative sense, but about Ramana, i.e. "that which abides in the heart of all being" and inviting you to find out for yourself what is true. She's pointing, inviting you to look for yourself, but you keep staring at her finger, insisting "the burden is on Gangaji." --Cantamagda (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your editorial opinion and some devotional interpretations of what Gangaji means, and your original research NOR, which are however not suitable for inclusion in the article. Gangaji's claims about what Papaji allegedly said which you report above without providing sources are her own, and less reliable than third party sources such as Godman, where conflicts exist. --Dseer (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in including my opinions, personal interpretations or original research. Whatever I've said is available for review to verify for yourself by consulting the references as sourced in the article. You can also write to Gangaji and ask to inspect the original letters from Papaji if you don't believe they're genuine. If you feel it conflicts with Godman, you've presented nothing but vagueness. --Cantamagda (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact is that her claiming enlightenment recognized by, and and a lineage via, a guru (Papaji) who is on published record as dismissing such claims by all these western messengers and ambassadors, is highly controversial. --Dseer (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has shown that Gangaji claims to be "enlightened". What does that even mean? As such, there's no such claim to dismiss but your own. The lineage topic has already been covered. Papaji saying something on some Tuesday morning that lineage is trouble doesn't make for controversy over whether lineage exists. Even messengers and ambassadors have lineage. How can anyone be an ambassador without lineage? It's absurd. Papaji said in a conversation about an abusive male disciple of his, "Here we honor the lineage. My teacher is sitting on my head... My Master always prayed to his Teacher." (The Truth Is, p. 419-420) --Cantamagda (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The Ramanashram article in totality defines lineage in a way that makes it clear that everyone who values Ramana is equally in a lineage in the only true sense and that this lineage is not authority to serve as guru. --Dseer (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then there's no denying that Gangaji is in lineage with Ramana. No one has shown that Gangaji claims anything but equality with everyone in terms of a lineage with Ramana. After all, her message is You are That! No one has shown that Gangaji claims any special authority to serve as a guru, or even that she claims to be a guru in any special way. --Cantamagda (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that Gangaji does not show the salient characteristics of a jnani as given by Ramana --Dseer (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

By what authority do you make that claim? When did Gangaji claim to be a jnani? That's not her language. --Cantamagda (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

and her own guru specified all of his western messengers and ambassadors were not enlightened (ref Logic 101: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore Socrates is mortal), your assertions about her "realization" and "message" are simply on POV. --Dseer (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It is accurately sourced, duly referenced, from her own autobiography which includes copies of letters from Papaji. It doesn't include a claim to be "enlightened," unless you think everyone who expresses a historical "aha" moment sometime in their life is claiming to be enlightened (whatever that even means). As to what Papaji said, there's no quote of him naming Gangaji as not enlightened. He made many general statements of a disagreeable nature, including the statement that "All the teachers of the world have this ego of being a teacher," (The Truth Is, p. 421) which obviously must include himself to the extent that he's a teacher. He claimed people were enlightened left and right and then made many seemingly conflicting statements, yet you think it's appropriate to advance some general statement not specific to Gangaji as if it's supposed to accurately reflect what he thought?

Furthemore, Gangaji's rationalizations for keeping her husband's betrayal of trust secret and minimizing the resulting damage from this betrayal need to be counterbalanced by more neutral assessments of the extent of the damage. --Dseer (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't include any such rationalizations in the article. Gangaji is quoted as saying people were shook up and upset, including her own staff, that some may leave and some stay. There's no statement in there about why she did or didn't do anything. And you haven't presented a "more neutral assessment" of "damage" in reference to Gangaji. --Cantamagda (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In summary, NPOV requires both claim and sourced controversy be mentioned, not whitewashed as you desire. Please comply with Wikipedian standards, not your own. Also, please cease vandalizing my talk page.--Dseer (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Instead of throwing labels and accusations around, produce substance. --Cantamagda (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dates Added

I added Sri Ramana Maharshi's dates into this part of the main article:

In Gangaji's own words, "In my meeting Papaji, and in my accepting him, he introduced me to his guru, Ramana. Papaji told me that the name, Ramana, means 'that which abides in the heart of all being.' Not something that abides in an Indian form or an American form, in an eastern country or a western country, in the past or the future or even the present. That which abides in the core of all being means all time, all space, all realization. Self-investigation is the living invitation offered through the power and grace of Ramana, through Papaji, and directly to you. As you have met me, and as you have accepted me, you meet my guru, Papaji. If you listen to me and investigate what I say, neither accepting it nor rejecting it, you will hear him. If you hear him, you will see Ramana. And Ramana is who you are."[10]

because, without them, a reader who is not aware of when Sri Ramana lived could easily conclude (falsely) that Poonja actually introduced Gangaji to Sri Ramana in person. The way the quote has been selected and the language in the quote make it sound like Gangaji was being introduced to a flesh and blood person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iddli (talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding the dates within that quote limits and distorts the meaning, as Gangaji is not referring simply to the limited sense of a physical Ramana Maharshi who lived X years in India (and saw in a photo), but as well to the Ramana that timelessly abides in the heart of all. For that reason, the dates you added have been moved to precede the quote. --Cantamagda (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Controversy in lineage?

In order to state that there is a controversy, you need a reliable third party source which asserts this, using the exact or very similar words. Would someone please provide a refference for this assertion, or take that sentence out and move the entire section of lineage out of the controversy section? Sethie (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have been paitent in waiting over a month for a citation for this. I will now remove it. Sethie (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A summary of the Gangaji controversies

Because there has been so much deleting of controversies in the Gangaji article recently, I would like to summarize the two controversies I am aware of and offer sources we can include in the article.

1. Gangaji's presentation of herself as being in the lineage of Ramana Maharshi (see: http://www.gangaji.org/satsang/library/lineage.asp)

2. Gangaji's year-long concealment from her students of her husband's 3 yr sexual affair with a younger woman student, and Gangaji's actions following the eventual disclosure.

First, the lineage controversy:

a) There are people who contend that any claim to being a teacher in the lineage of Ramana Maharshi represents a very serious misunderstanding of who he was and what he taught. To represent oneself as a teacher in his lineage (as Ganagaji does on her website, for example) ... it is a bit like saying "I am a vegetarian who consumes a steak every day" ... it begs the question: "are you sure you know what the word vegetarian means?" In addition, critics of Gangaji's "lineage claim" assert that her teaching and life style bear very little resemblance to Ramana Maharshi's.

Both of these sites address this topic: http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html and http://www.ramana-maharshi.org/ under the News Section entitled Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi – Great Sage or Milch cow?

Here is a little sample from the first site:

One VERY important thing to note from the outset is that there was NO LINEAGE stemming from Ramana Mahârshi. Bhagavân Ramana appointed NO "successors" and, unlike Papaji, told no one to teach in his name or as his representative. It is obvious to many that he did have some deeply, perhaps “fully” enlightened disciples, i.e, people who actually lived the teachings from a context of real freedom, not just talked the teachings. Annamalai Swâmi, whom i had the good fortune to study with for many weeks [in 1980-1 and 1988], was one of these fully “surrendered” sages. Ramana even allowed and encouraged him to build an ashram right next door to Ramanâshramam. Some of us think Annamalai Swâmi and a few others are as close to being “successors” or “spiritual sons” of Ramana as one can find. David Godman, who wrote the official 3-volume biography of Papaji (Nothing Ever Happened), considers Papaji to be a true sage. Others disagree. But, to repeat, we must be very careful in not speaking of “a lineage from Ramana Mahârshi.” None existed. Those who claim otherwise deceive themselves and others.

So, about Papaji, let me initially say that he was not a “successor” or “lineal heir” to Ramana in any way. He himself, in talking about his ongoing relationship to his Guru, claims to be just a mouthpiece for Ramana’s teachings. (end quote)

and from the second site:

The path of self-enquiry is actually the simplest of all, but appears to be the most difficult – until you really practice it. However, many people find confusion in Bhagavan’s teaching and start to look elsewhere for support and clarity.

This has led to an upsurge in so called advaitic ‘teachers’ throughout the world, many attaching their names to that of Bhagavan, each preaching their superiority over the others. Many even claim some lineage to Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, whilst others offer easy self-realisation and even promise mukti to gullible aspirants in return for favours or money.

Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi was a lifelong celibate and spent virtually his entire life in the open view of others. He had no descendants and did not appoint any successor … how is such a thing possible for one such as him? Claims of lineage or other relationships are false at best and based upon a complete misunderstanding of the Truth itself. These individuals are misguided in the extreme and can only lead the serious seeker into greater confusion than he already is. (end quote)

b) Sri Ramanasraman has denied the existence of a lineage stemming from Ramana Maharshi, and Papaji denied the existence of a teaching lineage stemming from him.

Here is Sri Ramanasramam's statement about this (published in their journal The Mountain Path):

In the years that followed there have been many who claimed a special dispensation from Bhagavan and that they have received from him a special diksha, which gives them the right to claim lineage. We are on sticky ground here because Bhagavan does work in mysterious ways and he does directly instruct many of his devotees in silence and secret. In actuality each of us is privy to his knowledge and blessing without any intermediary if we are open and receptive to the teachings. Each of us legitimately can claim lineage from Bhagavan although he himself was not part of any succession but stood alone, and in that sense of linear continuity he neither received nor gave initiation. But that is not the point, because though we each have the right to receive his grace, it is entirely different when it comes to assuming authority to disseminate the teachings. It is here we need to be very clear and separate the claims of wannabe gurus from the genuine devotees who are grateful recipients of grace. There have been many senior devotees of Bhagavan who, in their own right, had both the ability and authority to teach in his name. Muruganar, Sadhu Natanananda and Kunju Swami are some of those who immediately spring to mind. None of them to my knowledge ever claimed pre-eminence and the prerogative to teach. They knew two things. One, there would be many who would bow to their superior knowledge and set them up as an independent source, but secondly, they also knew that to abrogate for themselves the privilege would run contrary to Bhagavan’s mission or purpose. Not one of those who were genuine and close to Bhagavan took upon themselves the role of guru. They resisted the temptation, perhaps also aware of the danger of an inflation of the ego that is something to beware of when an ineligible person is treated as a guru. They did not see their own relatively higher knowledge compared to others around them, warranted any special claim. Moreover they knew Bhagavan is always with them so where was the necessity to claim a singular right? Especially if one really understood the teachings, who exactly are the others that one can teach?

...Bhagavan said at the end of his life when asked not to leave his body: “Where can I go?” That being the case it indicates to us in the strongest language possible that he is still very much with us. He said all along that he was not the body. Now it is up to us to verify it on the strength of his words, and if we have faith in Bhagavan, then what more do we need than the ability to listen plus our resilience and dependence upon this rock on which we build our lives? Since we each are recipients of Bhagavan’s grace we are all in the lineage and avatars of our self. In this sense of the word there is lineage. When we qualify ourselves to be holders of the teachings, do we require a trumpet? Is not silence in the spirit of Bhagavan the obvious rejoinder? (end quote)

Taken alone (as one editor here likes to take it), the sentence about everyone being in the lineage of Bhagavan could be interpreted in various ways -- but this statement was NOT made alone. It was made in the context of establishing that there is NO TEACHING LINEAGE of Sri Ramana -- in other words, the type of lineage Gangaji (and others) have tried to lay claim to in order to create spiritual businesses simply does not exist.

Gangaji is not making the lineage claim in the sense that six billion others are of equal standing in this lineage. She is making the claim to market herself as being specially qualified -- in a very PARTICULAR way -- to guide others spiritually.

Papaji's assertions on this topic, as documented in his official biography Nothing Ever Happened, Volume three can be read here: http://uarelove1.tripod.com/DISCERNMENT.htm

Granted Papaji said many things about people's spiritual states (and these can certainly be included in the Gangaji article if they can be verified by third party sources and not just by the subject of the article) -- but in his official three volume biography, he chose to deny the existence of any lineage stemming from him.

Sri Ramanasramam's position on a "teaching lineage" of Sri Ramana, and Papaji's statements on this topic, should not be edited out of the wikipedia article. They are well sourced and central to the controversy surrounding Gangaji' presentation of herself as a spiritual teacher in the "teaching lineage" of Ramana Maharshi and Papaji. I request that repeated efforts to remove them cease.

2) Gangaji's concealment of her husband's affair with a student

The most unbiased source I have seen for this is: http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/gangaji_emails.htm which has the full letter sent by the executive director of the Gangaji Foundation, addressing the matter of Gangaji's failure to disclose what the director terms a "betrayal of the teacher/student relationship and an abuse of power" and also has Gangaji's husband's letter to followers addressing the issue of his betrayal. I feel it is important to supply a link to this letter in the Gangaji article because the letter makes it very clear that Eli Jaxon-Bear is not the "awake" teacher he presented himself as. (This is relevant to Gangaji because she has chosen to align herself with him and teach with him. They are scheduled to lead a retreat together next month.) Iddli (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on the misunderstandings which perpetuate the purported Gangaji controversies

The Gangaji Foundation web page on lineage (see: http://www.gangaji.org/satsang/library/lineage.asp) does NOT claim Gangaji to be some elevated teacher. It uses third person language to describe Gangaji as:

"A teacher and author, she shares her direct experience of the essential message she received from Poonjaji and offers it to all who want to discover true and lasting fulfillment."

If, to you, that's claiming she's "special", that's your own interpretation, not Gangaji's and not Gangaji's claim. Gangaji further elaborates on the message and on being called a teacher:

"But the truth is, It has already got you. That is the very simple truth. That is why I cannot really call myself a teacher. I cannot teach you IT. But I can, and do, confirm that IT already has you, as whatever or whoever you think you are, however grandiose or worthless that self-image may be." (see http://www.gangaji.org/satsang/library/excerpts/deepen.asp)

So now we have it that Gangaji doesn't really call herself a teacher. In fact, in one of those quotes which pop up on the Gangaji Foundation homepage, Gangaji reminds:

"If you are very intent on having a teacher, and you call someone your teacher, then you are pulled into the fire. I am happy to play any role that you assign to me. I know that none of them are real."

This is not to say that in all her many discussions with people who've looked upon her as a teacher that she never once borrowed the language of "teacher" to make a point. For example, on July 11, 2004, in a public meeting in Mill Valley, California, as documented in an excerpt entitled "Beyond Betrayal" (see http://64.7.64.59/satsang/library/excerpts/betrayal.asp), after someone referred to Gangaji as a teacher in a discussion about expectations of teacher, Gangaji replied:

"Many people come to teachers expecting the teacher to fix their lives, or expecting the teacher to be a saint. There are some saints, but most teachers are not saints. This one is not. It is a disclaimer I make every meeting because people have felt betrayed just seeing me be a human being, or seeing the fact that I get angry, or have opinions that are different from their opinions."

So now we also have it that she disclaims being either a saint or a teacher. So where is the "specialness"? The message Gangaji shares is expressed in the titles of her books, "You are That!" and "Just Like You." It's not, "I'm that and you're not," or "I'm special and you're not," or "I've got something you don't." As the Gangaji Foundation page on lineage itself says:

"who WE are is boundless consciousness, completely whole, and totally free."

It's a message of who we all are. To anyone who might see her as "specially qualified", there is a quote which appears from time to time on the Gangaji Foundation homepage, where Gangaji says:

"I'm not asking that you take the teacher down from the pedestal. No, if the teacher is a true teacher, the teacher is inviting you up on the pedestal as well, to recognize the pedestal has room for all."

It's thus NOT a special recognition or claim of her having any special standing or about any "relatively higher knowledge compared to others." Rather, her own words offer a clear expression of equal standing for all. Gangaji also makes this clear in the main article quote:

"Ramana, means 'that which abides in the heart of all being.' ... Ramana is who you are."

As the Gangaji Foundation page on lineage reminds, it's who WE are. So unless you think you're specially qualified, then there's nothing "specially qualified" about it.

As to Sri Ramanasramam's "position", Ramana Maharshi no more designated the outfit called "Sri Ramanasramam" to speak on his behalf after his death than he designated anyone else to do so. As such, Sri Ramanasramam's editor's comments have no special authority, just as your personal interpretation of that editorial and whatever relevance you imagine it to have to Gangaji is not acceptable as NOR. It's ridiculous to deny the so-called "position" expressly affirms the existence of a lineage, and beyond that, what does it say and who is it talking about?

As to Papaji's assertions, as I well pointed out before, what you cite makes no mention of Gangaji by name, nor is there good reason to take any such assertions as more true than anything else Papaji has said to the contrary. That Papaji has said things to the contrary is verified by third party David Godman and others. But that still misses the point, that being the context in which Papaji made the assertions you selectively want to promote. What is that context in which there is no lineage and no enlightened ambassadors? Papaji asserted:

"there is no Teacher, no student, no teaching and that Nothing ever existed." (see http://www.gangaji.org/satsang/library/journal/this.asp)

"There is no future, there are no people, there is no earth, there is no one seeking Enlightenment, there is no one gaining Enlightenment." (The Truth Is, p. 323)

In that context, in the context that "Nothing ever existed", then yes indeed, there's no lineage and no one to be enlightened, as well as no Wikipedia article and no controversy. But then, we can all safely return to earth by turning to the record of the exchange Papaji had with his students, where Papaji told them, "Here we honor the lineage. My teacher is sitting on my head... My Master always prayed to his Teacher" (The Truth Is, p. 419-420), the very same exchange in which Papaji quoted Ramana as saying, "I worship my Teacher." We can likewise turn to the voluminous written exchanges between Papaji and Gangaji, whom Papaji referred to as both his spiritual daughter and no less than his own self.

As to your allegations of "concealment" and "Gangaji's failure", those may be your personal views, but those are pejorative terms, if not libelous, and not NPOV, not the words used by the letter you cite, and not appropriate in a biography of a living person. The letter you cite places no fault on Gangaji.

As to your claim that Eli will be "leading" a retreat next month with Gangaji, that is not what the Gangaji Foundation promotes on its website or mailings. On its website, the Foundation says, "Eli will be joining the retreat as health permits." In fact, many people will be joining the retreat, whether they be "awake" (whatever that means) or not. And as Gangaji has said, "if the teacher is a true teacher, the teacher is inviting you up on the pedestal as well, to recognize the pedestal has room for all."

So have at it, bang away at your own misunderstandings of who Gangaji is and the message Gangaji shares. Cantamagda (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC) -

What misunderstandings? Despite these apologetics, this rationale is quite understandable as another example of what has been called the "advaita shuffle", a rhetorical tactic for which Gangaji has been criticized more than once. Gangaji's organization presents her as a "teacher", and "lasting fulfillment" is identical with full realization in the advaita tradition, even if she employs the "advaita shuffle" and does not directly claim it for herself. The controversy about Gangaji's "lineage" claims despite inconsistencies with the sources of the lineage she claims and their teachings is well sourced. Given the number of neo-advaita teachers out there with similar claims and teachings, there is no need for Ramanashram to specifically criticize Gangaji when pointing to the neo-advaita phenomena and warning seekers. Gangaji's year long concealement of her teaching husband's sexual and spiritual betrayal after being informed of it has been widely criticized. That after all this Eli will be joining the retreat in any kind of teaching capacity if health permits speaks for itself regarding the allegations of nihilistic elements in Gangaji's teaching and relates to the controversy. --Dseer (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Gangaji is "presented" as a teacher because that's how she is in fact intelligibly seen by countless people. Presenting people in terms that other people can readily understand is a social custom. If you want to protest social customs, you are welcome to do so elsewhere.

That you claim your alleged "inconsistencies with the sources" is "well sourced" is but your unsubstantiated claim. The fact is, what you seek to pawn off as "well sourced" and "wide spread" are but self-published personal opinions/web pages made by but a very few individuals, none of which make any expert or scholarly remarks specific to Gangaji. Instead, your supposed "well sourced" evidence includes such gems as "I don't know enough about what she is teaching these days to comment", anonymous gossip, jokes, and some Tripod web page that is really little more than blue colored scratches, lacking any clear differentiation between the anonymous website operator's personal opinions and whatever quotes he selectively offers.

That you persist in your pejorative allegation of "concealment" demonstrates bias.

Eli was not reported to be participating "in any kind of teaching capacity" as you allege. The only announcement was that he'd be "joining" the retreat if health permits. And to allege "nihilistic elements" because Eli would attend a meeting called "Facing Everything" is silly. The meeting is not about escaping or denying reality but about facing reality and surrendering to all that has been avoided. Cantamagda (talk) 05:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC) -

Mistaking reporting sourced controversy with the article taking a position and employing isolated snipits out of contect as if that provided true meaning doesn't cut it. Gangaji's advocates such as you can present such arguments, but readers should be aware of alternative views. --Dseer (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Gangaji advocate. I'm a truth advocate and am enforcing WP:BLP. "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." I am "very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Please note that that includes this talk page.

Your edits are quite suggestive a Gangaji advocate who twists quotes out of context to favor Gangaji and insists on interpreting Gangagi and BLP for others based on your own "truth" rather than present NPOV and sourced controversies. Your edits show a particular concern with maximizing self-serving rationalizations and minimilizations for Gangaji's conduct, and you are not authorized to "enforce" BLP particularly given your biased editing favoring Gangaji, only neutral editors should do so. Obviously you have abandoned discussion and intend another edit war. Gangaji sources are self serving and questionable, the best source here is the newspaper article, and that includes the statements you want to censor. Inclusion of the Gangaji scandal as it has been reported remains non-negotiable. [2] Please do not censor comments here on the talk page again, just because you don't like them, that is unacceptable--they will only be restored and further information added that helps editors evaluate the article. Just as in the case of the article itself and its sources, you have selectively taken part of BLP and interpreted it to suit your taste. Take your complaints to BLP instead if you think you have a case. --Dseer (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you believe there is a controversy, you are required to source it according it to the rules. You have refused to do so and have repeatedly inserted self-published opinions, including your own, without even proper citation, to support your bias while rejecting every documented quote that reflects another side to the issue. - Cantamagda (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Gangaji's non-disclosure

Gangaji's husband, Eli Jaxon-Bear, the former head of the Leela Foundation, publicly admitted to a three-year sexual relationship with one of his students, who later became a teacher in the organization, in October 2006. Gangaji became aware of the betrayal of the teacher/student relationship as well as the personal betrayal in October 2005, but despite this knowledge and the implications of spiritual betrayal for Eli's role as a spiritual teacher, the matter was not disclosed to their followers until October 2006, a year later. "What was initially seen as a matter between two adults is now recognized to be a betrayal of the teacher/student relationship and an abuse of power," said a letter posted on the Leela Foundation Web site. The letter was written by Barbara Denempont, the Executive Director of both foundations. "The repercussions of this betrayal are reverberating in ways that were never imagined, but are very painful." Gangaji herself, while never finding fault with her own decision to keep the matter secret for the year despite its significance outside of their family relationship, acknowledges the controversy regarding her decision not to disclose this information about her husband who continued to serve as a spiritual teacher to unaware followers until the disclosure: "People are shook up, as they would be in any relationship or family," Gangaji said. "The staff is upset because they didn't know. It's been referred to as a family secret. I expect some people will leave and some people will stay." [3] --Dseer (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to your claims, the published story does not say Gangaji "became aware of the betrayal of the teacher/student relationship and an abuse of power" in October 2005. Rather, the executive director's comments published in October 2006, a year later, characterizes it as "initially seen as a matter between two adults." Further, the published story does not say, as you claim, anything about Gangaji "never finding fault with her own decision." The subject isn't addressed. The story indicates many decisions were made long before October 2006, including that by January 2006 they had mended their marriage and merged the two organizations and notes that, Eli "stopped teaching and has resigned from the Leela Foundation." The story does not say, as you have chosen to allege, that Eli "continued to serve as a spiritual teacher to unaware followers until the disclosure", nor does the story note Gangaji having any awareness that the affair had "significance outside of their family relationship" prior to October 2006 other than the organizational merger. You have chosen, at your own peril and at risk to Wikipedia, to make allegations not supported by the story. - Cantamagda (talk) 08:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Mischaracterization. This is a talk page for improving the article, not the article itself, my comments are to be taken accordingly. The facts are that she kept the matter secret for a year and you are simply presenting one side. Virtually anyone with common sense who paid attention to the news would realize secret adulterous relationships by a leader of a religious organization with a student who then became a teacher in a religious organization might occur fairly frequently, but would not be widely seen by others as just "a matter between adults", and might affect memberships and revenue. That Gangaji reportedly rationalized the secrecy and considered what became apparent was a "betrayal of the teacher/student relationship and an abuse of power" as merely "a matter between two adults" initially despite how most people would see it, rather than let the membership know about the incident so they could make their own assessment about it, is precisely why she is involved in the controversy. You ask us to give the highest reliance to Gangaji's words and accounts in these controversies and accept her claims of enlightenment while dismissing criticism yet this incident demonstrates precisely why Gangaji's self-serving assertions, unverified by neutral third party sources, are suspect, and inclusion of it is non-negotiable. While claiming to be interested only in "truth", it is you who deletes the comment by the Director from the article but inserts Gangaji's rationalization when both are appropriate for balance. This article is not intended to be just a promotional piece for Gangaji and her claims despite your admiration for her and her claims. --Dseer (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on this talk page, not just those in the article, are accountable to WP:BLP. I'm not "simply presenting one side." I'm holding you and myself to the fire as required by WP:BLP, and that forbids inclusion of your personal opinions, your second-guessing, your reading between the lines and whatever other games you want to play that are not directly backed by high quality verifiable sources, whether in the article or on this talk page. You claim "Gangaji reportedly rationalized" but though you claim it's "reportedly," you've presented no valid citation to support your claim. Gangaji's comments in the news article do not express any "rationalization." That Eli and the woman's behavior was "initially seen as a matter between adults" was the expression of the executive director, not Gangaji. The news article contains no statement by Gangaji as to how she did or didn't see the matter between October 2005 and October 2006. The "betrayal of the teacher/student relationship and an abuse of power" spoken of by the executive director was in regard to Eli and his organization which was not merged with the Gangaji Foundation until after the affair. And you're still on your "enlightenment" kick, claiming Gangaji has asserted she's "enlightened" in some special way, but you haven't produced anything to back it up. - Cantamagda (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You can continue to obscure the issue but it is a sourced fact that Gangaji knew of her husband's scandalous actions a year before the matter became public and despite that knowledge kept it secret and did not disclose it promptly, and that her husband's acts came to be widely seen as a "betrayal of the teacher/student relationship and an abuse of power". Readers are free to infer what they want from what she did or did not do based on the article, which is a better source than Gangaji materials, without your editorializing. The problem is you don't want to leave it at that, you want to present only Gangaji's comments on the scandal, when the Director's comments are sourced and relevant and Gangaji then charged followers to attend a seminar advertized as being to deal with the betrayal. How Gangaji personally rationalized the decision not to disclose the "betrayal of the teacher/student relationship and an abuse of power" isn't that important, though from the article a reader can reasonably infer that the Director is probably repeating the gist of the pair's initial explanation that it was a matter between adults. Semantic games aside, whether Gangaji claims everyone is enlightened or not, she still claims to be enlightened while obviously most folks do not, and your editorializing about Gangaji's meaning isn't appropriate here. I've been just trying to put the proper weight of secondary sources and regarding the controversies surrounding the woman here, but it is time for a thorough re-write. The article relies far too much on suspect Gangaji sources and links with a promotional flavor to meet encyclopedia standards; it, and the claims and flowery language, will be pruned accordingly. I'm not interested at all in your personal interpretation of BLP either, there are neutral editors who make such judgements, and you are not.--Dseer (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Editorializing has demonstrably been your sole mission. WP:BLP says, "Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association." The director's comments are in regard to Eli and his organization, not Gangaji. The article only says that people are upset with Eli, not Gangaji. To assert that she's been criticized will require that you produce a non-self-published reliable verifiable source that expressly says Gangaji has been criticized. And again, as to "enlightenment," you have not produced any quote by Gangaji in which SHE says she's "enlightened," nor any citation by anyone which expressly mentions Gangaji by name saying she's not. It remains your assertion, much like it was your assertion that Eli made such a claim, when in fact, no less than your own citation proved you wrong. Any quote that you may add by Poonja will be balanced by other quotes by Poonja, to include his nonsense statements about there being "no people" and "no earth", and any claim about enlightenment being temporary will be countered by quotes by him saying everything in the universe is temporary. That is balance to your intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantamagda (talk • contribs) 23:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to see a single purpose editor editorialize once again, claiming Gangaji's guru Poonja made "nonsense statements", and that you intend to use them to deal with Poonja's published inverviews where he denies any of his western disciples were enlightened which includes Gangaji. Also, while you claim the newspaper article only says that people were upset with Eli and his organization, they are married, Gangaji and Eli's organizations were already merging as of the earlier date of this article [4], the organizations merged before the scandal became public and the article comments were made, and the article does not really say what you claim as indicated by Gangaji's comments about a "family secret". While Gangaji doesn't commonly use the term "enlightened" exclusive to herself as you well know being so aware of Gangaji's works and organization she uses equivalent terms like self realization while carefully saying that others are also realized. As you also well know, Eli used a similar tactic in that published interview, thus it is perfectly permissable to say they both claimed to be enlightened although they both caveated those statements by claiming everyone was enlightened, thus your claim I was proved wrong is erroneous, though since you employ the advaita shuffle also attributed to Gangaji in your editing you may think so. Systematic pruning of the promotional bias you insert will continue. NPOV is non-negotiable. --Dseer (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Godman's Papaji (Poonjai) Interview

The removal of the citation and language referencing Godman's published interviews with Poonjai/Papaji, citing BLP, is unjustified and more evidence of bias. While the author of the site containing the quotes from the interviews published by Godman (Michael Langford) does have an opinion about the alleged enlightenment of those such as Gangaji, he is the published author on the subject of Ramana's teachings related to self enquiry, and this article does not endorse his opinion, it only uses the citation documenting some of the actual words from Poonjai's interviews published by David Godman, a reputable and more neutral third party source. These interviews disclose that Poonjai did not at that time endorse the enlightenment of Gangaji or her lineage claims and had a differnt opinion of her mission than she presents. Wikipedia does not arbitrate such disputes in favor of the subject of an article based on their assertions, it reports the various sourced positions accurately. The interviews are significant because it is her admitted guru casting doubt on Gangaji's assertions, not someone's commentary. Misinterpretation of BLP to suppress such sourced criticism or relevant third party citations which are actually considered better and more reliable sources than unvalidated, self serving statements by the subject or their organization, is not authorized.--Dseer (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The only citations I removed were either those I myself had added or citations to self-published web pages. If you're refering to the two citations in the last paragraph of the article next to the word "Godman", then for your edification, please note it was I who originally added them, not you or anyone else, which makes your claim of bias unfounded. Further, I removed the entire paragraph about the alleged controversy over lineage not out of bias but because no one has yet produced any citation that meets WP standards to show there's actually any controversy about Gangaji's lineage. I mean, if the paragraph is going to begin by saying there's controversy over Gangaji's lineage, then shouldn't someone at least be able to show proof that more than a few people believe Gangaji's lineage as she describes it is not valid? Your personal assertion is not sufficient. Citations to self-published web pages don't cut it, nor does any quote by Poonja about who's "enlightened" or not, and especially when such quote makes no direct mention of Gangaji. For just as you yourself differentiated enlightenment from lineage, it is not the same issue.

And FYI, per WP:BLP, "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." And per WP:V, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." Therefore, in biographies about living persons, if it's self-published, it doesn't matter one iota whether your chap is a published author.

I will also counter your unsubstantiated claim regarding what you describe as "Gangaji's assertions" on "enlightenment", whatever that is. If you're going to allege an assertion, it's your duty to produce and document the assertion that you allege, otherwise it's just your strawman. You have not done so. Where is any quote of Gangaji asserting she's "enlightened" in any special way? I've already produced a bounty of quotes by Gangaji to the contrary. As to lineage, the only quote by Poonjaji you've offered that even mentions "lineage" is one saying that all lineage comes with problems. That quote is not a denial of the existence of lineage. As I've already documented, Poonjaji himself said he honors lineage. Of course, he also said there are "no people" and "no earth." Do you propose we only document what one side of his tongue said?

I should also bring up the first paragraph under Controversy, which claims "Gangaji has been criticized by some for not promptly publicizing an affair her husband." Where is the citation to a reputable source to substantiate she's been criticized for that? The cited news article doesn't say that.

That takes us to the opening paragraph as well, where it asserts "her spiritual claims have been disputed and some of her actions have been a source of controversy." Again, where does the news article assert that it was HER actions that have been a source of controversy? And where are the proper citations to substantiate the assertion that "her spiritual claims have been disputed"? Indeed, where exactly has it been spelled what is meant by "her spiritual claims"? Yes, you used to have a citation to a self-published non-NPOV opinion/website after this paragraph, but as I have made abundantly clear, such a citation is not acceptable under WP:BLP, WP:V for this article which is why it has been and will continue to be removed if it ever appears again. - Cantamagda (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies should be applied equitably and per NPOV. A single purpose editor has created a POV article almost exclusively based on publicity materials and questionable sources that are unduly self-serving, that is all. That the publisher of the autobiography you reference (Do Publishing) meets the criteria of a reputable third party publisher with enough fact checking to constitute a reliable source rather than self published is, to say the least, highly debatable. The article will be greatly pruned and kept pruned accordingly in accordance with Wikipedia policy about correcting excessive reliance on such suspect sources. Furthermore, websites of recognized experts like Conway who dispute her spiritual claims directly citing reliable sources and references from reliable sources contradicting her spiritual claims are not arbitrarily disqualified as external links. Excessive and unjustified removals will be reported as 3RR violations and continued deletion or alteration of editor contributions as you did will be reported as editor misconduct.--Dseer (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lineage Section

I personally think all the quotes is an overkill, I think a summary, with citation for most of it would suffice. Any other thoughts? Sethie (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced allegations

I was disapointed to see that the majority of the criticisms listed in this article were actually not in the sources. I have removed every idea that was in the article, and not in the sources.

I hope/wish someone can find a WP:RS which contains them. Sethie (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Promotional Tone Unacceptable

This article relies far too much on primary, self-published souces without fact checking and is written in promotional tone. NPOV is not negotiable. Despite repeated efforts to turn this into an promotional article based on Gangaji sources, Wikipedia policy is that no information is preferrable to misleading information and editorialized explanations by advocates and self-published sources must not be the basis for anything more than a stub. Editors should keep this biographical article trimmed accordingly and based on secondary, reliable sourcing, avoid editorialized interpretations of what Gangaji means and for example her "invitation", and delete inappropriate expansions based her actual notability and on promotional Gangaji sources. --Dseer (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking with respect to her core teaching requires that it be supported by her own words. Her own words say that the source of all is own's own self, and thus it's not her core teaching but POV to claim it's merely "her" invitation. If you prefer that it say the core of her teaching is "an" invitation rather than "her/your" invitation, that would be acceptable. That would avoid the issue of whose invitation it is.

As to biographical information, I have documented the sources to include the letters written by Poonja himself. These document in Poonja's own words that Poonja called her "Gangaji" and his instruction to her. Yes, the letters are published by Gangaji, but they are nonetheless Poonja's letters. It is thus misleading to simply claim it's Gangaji's story as to her name and Poonja's instructions. And as I pointed out, the evidence is lacking to claim that Poonja named her Gangaji after the fever event as opposed to before. - Cantamagda (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Challanges to Gangaji's "spiritual claims"

I was unable to find the word "Gangaji" in the source provided for "some of her spiritual claims have been challenged."

Dseer, unless I am mistaken, you added that source, would please indicate where this source says that? Sethie (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There were several sources based on Papaji interviews which documented the dispute, all removed by the Gangaji advocate which then makes the statement seem unsourced, but the point here is that there is sufficient sourcing there that Gangaji's spiritual claims have been "challenged", not to assert that the challenges have been proven, and it is actually absurd to claim they have not been challenged since many do not agree with her or her interpretations of her state. It is the case, however, that when Papaji remarked: "Wherever there is a lineage, impurity enters,’ and then cited several instances to back up his statement, one of those mentioned by name was Gangaji, although that name was edited out of the published version of the talk (something the Gangaji advocate here may very well know). I had more citations but the Gangaji advocate has systematically deleted sourced citations from various sites on Godman's interviews where Papaji specifically declares why he never imparted his final teachings to anyone, and specifically mentioning westerners as being only messengers, not teachers in their osaying that: “Nobody is worthy to receive them. Because it has been my experience that everybody has proved to be arrogant and egotistic…I don’t think anyone is worthy to receive them.” Regarding your question, Godman found that Papaji wrote at least 50, including Gangaji, congratulating them on "enlightenment", but that he never included and deliberately excluded all them on his list of those who had realized, which definitely includes G

angaji as no exceptions were given. This is elementary logic which is permitted in Wikipedia, that is, if Socrates is a man, and all men are mortal, then Socrates is mortal, or in this case, if none of those westerners Papaji met were realized or worthy of his final teachings, and Gangaji was certainly one of them, then it applies to Gangaji as well, along with all the others, no need for Papaji to list them all.

Your "elementary logic" fails you. Your quotes show that controversy exists in the mind of one man over what Papaji said, not over what Gangaji claims. Further, your quotes state that what Papaji said was "paradoxical" and not a "straight answer." It's thus not "elementary logic" to conclude what Papaji was saying. It could be he was saying that he himself is a liar or babbler and shouldn't be listened to. It could be he was saying something about Gangaji. It's not elementary logic to assert what he was saying. Even if he were speaking about Gangaji, that's not the same as saying he was speaking about her "spiritual claims." Indeed, what "spiritual claims"? It's not encyclopedic to be so vague. Encyclopedias are to be explicit. And if you're claiming that she claims something, that's your claim, not hers. If you want to assert that Gangaji claims something, then you need to be explicit and document it from her own mouth. - Cantamagda (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect, mistate the burden of proof, and once again, want to have it both ways. You want to claim that Papaji recognized a lineage with Gangaji, yet that Papaji didn't mean what he said about none of his students being realized. You seem to have great difficulty in accepting the limitations of context; in an earlier edit, you even confound Papaji's use of the term lineage with respect to his devotion to his master with justification for a lineage on an entirely different matter, with students he denied in published interviews that a lineage existed with and who he did not consider worthy, obvious editorializing from a POV. What is paradoxical in the quotes is why Papaji told some they were enlightened in private but never acknowledged them publically and denied it in a published interview, not that he ever stated they have received his final teachings. All I have to show is that Gangaji's spiritual claims regarding her state have been challenged, nothing else, and that is simple logic, and I have provided actual published quotations. You on the other hand want to take the obviously false position that Gangaji's claims have never been challenged, and want to suppress allowable expert, secondary published sources which Papaji himself authorized to publish his statements on various pretexes, while editorializing on what Gangaji "means", what Papaji "means", etc. A trimmed article minimizing the self-promotion based on the self published sources you have provided in neutral tone with acknowledgement that not everyone agrees with her is what is acceptable.--Dseer (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP states, "Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself." And WP:V, "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." And WP:NOR, "even with well-sourced material, if you use it ... to advance a position NOT DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research." And, "If the sources cited do not EXPLICITLY reach the same conclusion... then the editor is engaged in original research." Therefore, if your objective is "to show that Gangaji's spiritual claims regarding her state have been challenged," then the requirement is upon you to provide BOTH (1) a substantiated reference to *her own mouth* which directly and explicitly identifies the "Gangaji's spiritual claims" you assert to be challenged, and (2) a non-self-published reference to a reliable source which directly and explicitly supports your contention. You have failed on both counts. What "spiritual claims" are you talking about? The self-published material you've linked to in violation of WP:BLP does not directly or explicitly mention Gangaji, and neither you nor your material have directly and explicitly identified Gangaji as claiming anything. As to lineage, the only quote by Papaji you've ever offered that even mentions "lineage" is one saying that all lineage comes with problems. That quote is not a denial of the existence of lineage. On the other hand, Papaji has explicitly identified Gangaji in his own words as his "daughter" and every dictionary I've checked makes it very clear that a father-daughter relationship is a lineage. Obviously, he wasn't claiming Gangaji as his biological daughter but as his spiritual daughter and thus clearly asserting a spiritual lineage. As to "Gangaji's spiritual claims regarding her state", again, you are asserting facts not in evidence. Her claim is that she's "just like you," whether you be lecturing or delivering garbage. She doesn't claim to be enlightened any more than she'd claim to be ignorant. And no, I don't take the "position that Gangaji's claims have never been challenged." I take the position of challenging you to identify her claims from her own mouth, and to otherwise leave your editorializing on what you think her position to be for your own self-published diatribe. - Cantamagda (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The link says: "What I found curious about this was that he never ever included any of his own disciples on this master list, an omission that might lead one to infer that none of his disciples had actually attained the final sahaja or natural state of the jnani. This is both interesting and paradoxical since many of his disciples were told very categorically by him, "You are enlightened. You are free." When I wrote his biography, I recovered several thousand letters Papaji had written to devotees all over the world. I would say that at least fifty of them could produce a hand-written letter from Papaji congratulating them on their enlightenment. In the vast majority of cases these experiences were temporary. I often wondered why Papaji was so enthusiastic about these temporary experiences, and many other people felt the same way. Lots of people asked him about this, but I don't know anyone who got a straight answer, including me. When I asked him about this phenomenon, he said that he lived in the silence and that when silence spoke, it always said the most appropriate thing, even though it might not be factually accurate. He added, "I have spent all my life in that silence. I have learned to trust what it says." Implicit in this statement is a recognition that Papaji is sometimes telling people that they are enlightened when he can see clearly that they are not. He trusted the source of these statements, but he could never give a good explanation of why the silence was making him say these things."

Another Godman interview states:

David: “You used to give experiences to a lot of people. Why did you do it if you knew that the effect would not be permanent?”

Papaji: “I did it to get rid of the leeches who were sticking to me, never allowing me to rest or be by myself. It was a very good way of getting rid of all these leeches in a polite way. I knew that in doing this I was giving lollipops to the ignorant and innocent, but this is what these people wanted. When I tried to give $100 bills to them, they rejected them. They thought that they were just pieces of paper. So I gave them lollipops instead.

David: Many of the people you gave lollipops to left Lucknow thinking that they were enlightened. Does the fact that they accepted the lollipop and left indicate that they were not worthy to receive the $100 bills?

Papaji: “If one is not a holy person, one is not worthy to receive the real teaching. Many people think that they have attained the final state of full and complete liberation. They have fooled themselves, and they have fooled many other people, But they have not fooled me. A person in this state is like a fake coin. It may look like the real thing. It can be passed around and used by ignorant people who use it to buy things with. People who have it in their pocket can boast of having a genuine coin, but it is not real. It has no value. When it is finally discovered to be a fake, the person who is circulating it, claiming that it is real, is subject to the penalties of the law. In the spiritual world, the law of karma catches up and deals with all people who are trafficking in fake experiences. I have never passed on the truth to those whom I could see were fake coins. These people may look like gold and they may glitter like gold, but they have no real value. There are many people who can put on a show and fool other people into believing they are enlightened.”

David: “Many people have heard you say, ‘I have not given my final teachings to anyone’. What are these final teachings, and why are you not giving them out?”

Papaji: “Nobody is worthy to receive them. Because it has been my experience that everybody has proved to be arrogant and egotistic… I don’t think anyone is worthy to receive them.”

David: “Though Papaji has consistently said that a living human Guru is essential for those seeking liberation, he does not intend to appoint anyone to carry on his teaching duties when he dies. He remarked in one of his satsangs a few years ago, ‘Wherever there is a lineage, impurity enters,’

and cited several instances to back up his statement.”

This is more than enough to document that her spiritual claims have been challenged, which is all the sentence says. Readers can decide for themselves who has more credibility, Gangaji or Papaji. It is time for the Gangaji advocate to stop suppressing references to the controversies around Gangaji and presenting only the advaita shuffle position. In general, the article needs to be kept very short because it relies on Gangaji sources, and the Gangaji advocate needs to stop suppressing statements based on direct quotes from Papaji that do present Gangaji's claims in a favorable light. The secondary sources (the paper, Godman's published Papaji books, etc.,) are far more credible as Wikipedia sources than self published bios.--Dseer (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to state in the main article that her claims have been challenged, it is required that the alleged challenge (1) mention both her name and her claims expressly, and (2) be documented per WP standards. Your saying that these things somehow challenge her spiritual claims is your POV. In addition, the Godman reference like so many that you've tried to add is a self-published article not by the subject of the article herself. Per WP:BLP, self-published is not permissible unless by the subject of the article.

- Cantamagda (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That is obviously not entirely true, and that her claims have been challenged is self-evident. The rhetorical tricks used to divert attention from the actual language into some strawman paraphrase are apparent. It is not necessary for example to find Gangaji specifically mentioned in the Bible or Koran to establish that her teachings are challenged by mainstream Christians and Moslems given the basic tenets of their faith, nor is it necessary to find specific mention of Gangaji when Papaji excludes all his western students which includes her beyond all doubt. It's interesting that Gangaji advocates assume that Papaji considered her important enough to even bother to criticize in public when the Indian manner is to say it in unmistakeable language and in responses to questions but not necessarily directly by name in writing. You know very well her claims have been challenged, the teacher and ex-Papaji follower Andrew Cohen is well known to have challenged her claims in his critique of her advaita shuffle, the published author and spiritual teacher Tim Conway has criticized her, etc. Since it is self-evident not everyone considers her claims valid, what you are really opposed to therefore is the evidence from Papaji's own published words that Papaji himself disputed Gangaji's claims along with all the others in excluding an entire class of people which includes Gangaji, which he did, from being realized and from being authorized to assume the teaching role she did. Your various comments about Papaji's alleged flaws show you have made the choice to give Papaji less credibility than Gangaji, but readers should decide for themselves, not you. And, the quotes are not just personal comments, they are directly and accurately cited from Godman's book which has been widely and favorably reviewed by others, and he is a recognized expert who Papaji himself accepted as an authorized biographer and interviewer, not some self-published hack. It's quite revealing that you have such little respect for the well known expert and well endorsed David Godman's work when it comes to Gangaji because he can be inferred to not consider her a realizer. Again, the only thing that is being asserted is that there is a challenge, not the correctness of a specific charge. If that is all you can come up with, it is insufficient. Gangaji's self-published and self serving material is unreliable and insufficiently fact checked, and can't be the primary basis for an article, and since extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, the burden is those trying to to find secondary source support for her extraordinary claims. It obvious you are determined to present Gangaji in a promotional light on flimsy and pretextual grounds, while I will not accept a promotional article that does not acknowledge the obvious, that her claims are not universally accepted, and edit accordingly. --Dseer (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Again, WP:BLP states, "Self-published material may NEVER be used in BLPs UNLESS written by the subject him or herself." And WP:V, "Self-published sources should NEVER be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." And WP:NOR, "even with well-sourced material, if you use it ... to advance a position NOT DIRECTLY AND EXPLICITLY supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research." And, "If the sources cited do not EXPLICITLY reach the same conclusion... then the editor is engaged in original research." If you wish to assert in the article that her "spiritual claims" have been challenged, you are required to provide non-self-published documentation by reputable sources that directly and explictly support your assertion. That requires that Gangaji be mentioned by name at some point. You've tried to skip over WP requirements in multiple ways, including by speaking of "her spiritual claims" without ever documenting (1) that she ever made such claims, and indeed (2) even what those claims are. Instead, you link to some self-published article (in violation of WP:BLP rules) as if that's supposed to establish that she's made claims and what her claims are (again in violation of WP rules). Your inability to document your alleged "spiritual claims" and your inability to find sources that meet WP:BLP standards is your problem and it remains your problem no matter how many times you might want to toss about the word "promotional" as a diversion. - Cantamagda (talk) 04:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This is spot on. Well argued. Sethie (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"but this did not resolve the controversy for everyone"

Ummmm I can't find this mentioned in the article that is cited anywhere.

I would ask that whomever put it in either find a citation for it, or remove it. Sethie (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Papaji Material

Dseer I think it is a great read. I think summarized versions of it belong in the Papaji article, and I just can't see a way for it to go into this article without it violating WP:OR since it doesn't mention her by name.

Now if you found a direct, and I mean DIRECT quote of hers, (for example, "I recieved the final teaching") then I think WP:IAR would apply and we could put her quote next to the Goodman quote. Otherwise I just can't see a way for that source in that doesn't violate wikipedia policies. Sethie (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Papaji article used to reference the same material, but the Gangaji advocate has been there too. A summarized version does need to be included given all those who like Gangaji make claims which Papaji seems to have denied.

I expect the Gangaji advocate to consistently POV skew this article and take a more deletionist position regarding any criticism rather than accept the affirmative responsibility to seek a neutral tone and critical sources common to all editors, that is a given you see here with almost every advocate. I would like help from more neutral editors and it is not my sole responsibility to turn a POV article into an NPOV article, others need to educate themselves on the subject and look for sources also, and we need more editors here. You can't isolate one policy out of the whole, application of rules must be wholistic and improve the article itself, there is no wikipedia imperative to have long, poorly sourced promotional material on every subject. Basic principles apply here. Statements cited accurately and directly from Godman's published and reviewed works are not "self-published". Gangaji's claims of realization and mission are however self-published as well as self-serving, less reliable, and make poorly sourced claims about others, and thus can't serve as main basis for an article, and they fall under the "exceptional claims require exceptional proof" tenet, thus "no information is better than misleading information" to preserve NPOV.

Again, what “claims of realization”? The article didn’t say she’s “enlightened.” The article’s Development section cited her expressing in her view her encounter with Papaji led to “the realization of the fulfillment she had sought.” Who is more reliable or a better source in regard to her own sense of fulfillment than herself? Who even knows what that means but herself? “Reliability” is no more an issue in regard to her statement of fulfillment than if she were to say she loves to finger paint. There’s no objective test to see if she loves to finger paint and the world doesn’t end if she actually hates it. As to her “mission,” I quoted verbatim instructions from Poonja’s own letters and cited the reference to them. Those letters are not self-published for they weren’t published by the author Poonja, but published by the recipient Gangaji in her autobiograpy edited by Roslyn Moore. There’s nothing “exceptional” about her expressions of a sense of fulfillment or the generic instructions by Papaji, and they didn’t “serve as main basis for an article.” - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of contention here is really not whether the controversy and dispute over Gangaji's full realization and position in a lineage is accurate as the Gangaji advocate would have it is, which would be POV, but whether it exists. Papaji's direct and published exclusion of the entire group of followers from being enlightened jnanis and his dismissal of them as failed messengers may seem to have been watered down by omission of a specific list of names of those (including Cohen and Gangaji) who he criticized in the published version of the interviews, as is commonly done in the Indian style of avoiding names while clearly identifying who is being criticized from the description, but since he did not offer a single exception which Gangaji could claim as applying to her, simple logic shows Gangaji was included, and that is not OR.

You speak of “Papaji's direct and published exclusion of the entire group of followers.” But the only alleged Papaji quote you’ve offered which has even the appearance of total exclusion is one in which he says in reference to his “final teachings” that “Nobody is worthy to receive them.” What significance is there supposed to be in regard to that? What does it even mean? Exactly when did he say that? And notably, the statement did not say he never would give his “final teachings” to anyone and it made no direct mention of “followers.” His statements about “lollipops” and “leeches” did not include everyone who came to visit him in Lucknow. To quote, it was in reference only to “MANY of the people”, not “all of the people.” And when he said, “I have never passed on the truth to those whom I could see were fake coins,” he didn’t say everyone was a “fake coin” and he didn’t say, “I have never passed on the truth to anyone.” - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Gangaji is well known for her "advaita shuffle" waffling techniques which Cohen blasted her for, and for word nuances, which makes it harder, but her website is more open about her claims and clearly advertises her as part of lineage of realizers, and regarding a "final teaching" claim, she directly and explicitly claims to have shared her guru's "last teaching", which should be close enough, on her site [5]:

You say, “her website… clearly advertises her as part of lineage of realizers.” But actually, the website clearly advertises (as does Ramanasramam website) that EVERYONE is in the “lineage,” that “who WE are is boundless consciousness, completely whole, and totally free,” that “Ramana is who you are.” It also identifies Papaji as her teacher and to Ramana as Papaji’s teacher.

Regarding Papaji's "final teaching" vs Gangaji's "last teaching of Papaji", neither Gangaji nor Papaji "directly and explicitly" said they were speaking of the same teaching. And to be precise, she doesn’t say anywhere on that webpage that he gave the "last teaching" to her, or say where or how she received it, or even that she received it at all. What’s more, previously, Papaji only had said that he hadn’t given his final teaching to anyone AS OF THE TIME when he made that statement, which was well before he died. But unless this prior claim that he never gave his final teaching to anyone were his last words that passed from his dying lips, there’s no telling how many people to whom he may have given his “final teaching” after he had made that statement, if we’re in any way to believe that the mere words “Where is the Buddha?” is his final teaching. At that earlier time, he didn’t even say what his “final teaching” was or that he even knew what it was. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Meeting with Gangaji - September 1997

Recently I shared the last teaching that my guru gave, from his deathbed, while coming out of a semi-conscious state. Fiercely, furiously, he asked each one of his devotees in the room with him a very essential question, which is really the root of all his teaching, throughout all of his time here with us. And that question is, "Where is the Buddha?"

Where is the Buddha? You could substitute Peace, God, or Truth. Where is Peace? Where is God? Where is Truth? Finally, where is Life itself? Where is Life to be found? In resolving the question, Where is the Buddha? there is a reconciliation of all apparent opposing forms, and in understanding life, it is the same. This reconciliation is revealed in the discovery of where life is. Where is that which you are seeking? I know where you have sought for it, and you must know where you have sought for it. You must carefully, ruthlessly, see where you have looked for Truth, for Life, for God, for Yourself. Ruthlessly tell the truth about what has been found there, and then ask yourself, in truth, "Where am I?".

The basic problem here is not an article where Gangaji's claims are merely noted as her claims, but promotional language which appears to show an endorsement of these by another, more respected spiritual figure (Papaji), also necessary for the lineage assertion, by deliberate omission, when there is an attributable, published denial directly affecting the claims. I'm open to various modifications of wording provided there is some reference to disputes around Gangaji as long as the claims are featured. While it's obvious only a small minority of people as a whole take Gangaji's claims seriously, it is more informative show that even among those sympathetic to her form of religious views and her "lineage" these claims are not universally accepted. As long as Gangaji's claims of spiritual attainment and recognition of her state by Papaji (statements involving another) are featured in this article and on her linked website, then direct, published statements by Papaji as reported by Godman denying the very foundation for the claims are allowable. Otherwise, the article presents misleading information as fact which can not be allowed. I'll give other editors some time to work on this to make it more NPOV, but if the article continues to have a promotional tone and rely on Gangaji sources I'll be editing it ruthlessly again at some point.--Dseer (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the “problem” is you allege “her claims” to be a “problem” while refusing to produce the claims you allege to be a problem. It’s like claiming Gangaji’s leprosy is a problem without ever showing that she has leprosy, which she does not. It is encumbent upon you to produce the actual claims from her own mouth into direct evidence. It is not acceptable to speak of “Gangaji’s claims” as supposedly showing “endorsement” when you have yet to produce direct proof of the claims you speak of.

For example, you speak of , “Gangaji's claims of spiritual attainment and recognition of her state by Papaji”, but you have not produced the claims you speak of. Where are these “Gangaji’s claims of spiritual attainment”? And where are these “Gangaji’s claims of… recognition of her state by Papaji”? Show us all where Gangaji claims to have attained any special state. To the contrary, she well points out that Papaji told many the same fluff about “You’re the one I’ve been waiting for.” If you think there’s anything special about any of that, then it’s you who is making the claims of special status. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dseer's comments. If Gangaji simply said, "I had some profound experiences in India and if you pay me, I will share them with you," there would really be no issue here.

Gangaji shares “it” (call it life, reality, present being or whatever) with everyone, and she expressly states to all that “it” is always totally free, as “who we are is boundless consciousness, completely whole, and totally free.” And no, people don’t pay her. People have the choice of attending for free or giving/paying money to the Gangaji Foundation. The Gangaji Foundation is a separate legal entity with a set of programs that cost money to operate. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Gangaji creates the impression that she has realised the Self/permanently transcended the identification with the body-mind, and that Papaji acknowledged this (and did not retract this), and that she belongs to a teaching lineage which includes Ramana Maharshi, Papaji, and herself.

Cantamagda would like us to believe Gangaji is saying no such thing and is merely gently inviting people to experience the truth of their own being -- but Gangaji actually conveys much more than this on her website and in her books.

You come to her words with your own understanding and then claim it's she who is creating the impression when it's really your own interpretation. You say she conveys "much more" and I can well argue that she's saying much less. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

When editors attempt to bring clarity to Gangaji's unsupported claim to being part of an enlightened lineage, Cantamagda immediately counters that Gangaji does not present herself as a teacher and challenges editors to find quotes where she claims her enlightenment. Why then does this wikipedia article describe her as a teacher/guru and make reference to her "awakening of self-realization"? Until we can agree that she presents herself as a teacher and as having been liberated, I am removing all references to these points in the article.

As to teacher/guru, the article described her in the introduction as a “teacher, sometimes called ‘guru’” because that is how she is often seen/described by the public, the people who are seeking to learn about her, on terms the public readily understands. For example, she’s often seen sitting in front of a room answering questions in a role that many people might likely associate with the label “teacher.” The Gangaji Foundation website also refers to her as “teacher” on its introductions page, but then proceeds on the inner pages to explore the truth of that identification. She is a teacher or sometimes called “guru” from that perspective. As to your claim that it makes “reference to her ‘awakening of self-realization’”, those are your words and not the words in the article. The article spoke of her “realization of the fulfillment she had sought.” You’re free to project as little or as much as you want upon those words, but that’s your doing, not the words themselves. I had dinner recently with someone who told me his dream job had been realized. He too “realized the fulfillment he had sought.”

You say, “Until we can agree that she presents herself as a teacher and as having been liberated, I am removing all references to these points in the article.” When did the article have any reference to her “having been liberated”? What does it mean to be “liberated”? Does she have to throw away her bra? Liberated from what? Who is not liberated? She says, “who we are is boundless consciousness, completely whole, and totally free,” and that’s totally appropriate to include in the article. Is that claiming she was liberated? If she’s not liberated in your eyes, that’s all you can say. Gangaji's “liberation” as you call it is not anything anyone in the world has any publicly recognized special competence to judge. Do you suggest a panel be appointed? Who would appoint the panel? The Wikipedia public can judge Gangaji’s “liberation” as well (or as poorly) for itself. As to “teacher,” like I’ve already said, she is both presented as a teacher and as not a teacher, or as presenting a non-teaching. The same applied to Papaji. Are you thus going to remove all references to Papaji as a teacher from the Papaji article? Or is that just the game you’re playing in this article? She’s demonstrably called/described as a teacher. There’s no question over that and no annointed third-party needs to be sourced to make that statement. It would be appropriate in the article to say something along the lines that she is often described as a teacher even though she says, “I truly have nothing to teach you” because she says “you are That” which you seek to know. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The word satsang (as it is being used in this article) implies an awakened teacher sitting or talking (or both) with spiritual seekers or people wishing to benefit in some way benefit from the silent presence or the teaching of the satsang leader. I am cutting mention of this as well, because if we cannot establish that Gangaji is a teacher or that she has any teachings (or the kind of radiance one associates with enlightened beings), it seems absurd to call these events satsangs.

Who is to say the correct understanding of satsang does not apply to Gangaji’s meetings? You’re welcome to your personal opinion of what’s satsang like anyone else, but one can as well say the Guru is always present everywhere at all times, including in/as the Gangaji manifestation. You can have satsang by yourself or with friends or with a mountain.

If you think satsang means there’s some special “radiant” human in the room sitting and talking as a leader, that’s nothing more than your POV. The article said that “Gangaji organizes satsangs.” What the article perhaps might say is that the Gangaji Foundation organizes/schedules satsangs with Gangaji and the public. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We also need some reliable third party source to establish that she and Eli helped facilitate a Tibetan Buddhist meditation center. I am removing that pending the source. (To the best of my knowledge, this is inaccurate, unless the term Tibetan Buddhist meditation center is being used VERY loosely -- in which case, why mention it?)

In the 70's, while Gangaji and Eli were living in Bolinas, they were very interested in Eastern thought and Tai Chi. Gangaji recalls that the Tibetan master Kalu Rinpoche came to Bolinas and appointed them (mainly Eli) to head a dharma center, not out achievement but as the result of a dream Rinpoche had. Kalu Rinpoche was born in Tibet and was the senior meditation master of the Kagyu Order but lived in Darjeeling in his later years. He was a teacher of the XVI Karmapa and the present Dalai Lama, and founded fifty Dharma centers around the world. Gangaji's humble Tibetan dharma center was in their bedroom with meditations and chanting morning and evening. She says she found it to be beautiful but too intense for her nervous system. So she subsequently became involved in Zen, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, Chinese language, dance, Vipassana and enneagrams. - Cantamagda (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, Eli wrote to her from India, urging her to come and meet Papaji -- Eli did not return to the US to bring Gangaji to India ... so I am removing that unless some reliable third party source can be found to establish that Eli first returned to the US.

That is not what Gangaji, i.e. the source cited in the article, says. To the contrary, Gangaji explicitly says in her autobiography that Eli returned to the US and then Gangaji went to India. So which did you do: (a) not cite your source, or (b) not read the source cited? - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A more accurate description of how she got her new name would be "Papaji said Gangaji should be known as Ma Ganga or Gangaji, and she chose Gangaji" but I have no wikipedia-complying source so will not change this.

Gangaji’s autobiography is Wikipedia-compliant with respect to the statement as follows: “Gangaji reported that Papaji, recalling a dream in which she was the Goddess Ganga, said her name would be Ma Gangaji.” Also Wikipedia-compliant is the citation to letters written by Papaji himself published in her autobiography in which Papaji wrote, “You have well deserved the name GangaJee dropped on you by the Ma Ganga.” Neither of these supports your story that she was choosing between Ma Ganga and Gangaji. To the contrary, Papaji said Ma Ganga dropped the name GangaJee on her. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Though some of Gangaji's followers might consider her (nonexistent ;-) teaching to be in line with Advaita Vedanta, the inclusion of this in the wikipedia article requires a reliable third party source (a published book or article by someone knowledgeable in this field, not someone who has learned all their Advaita Vedanta from Gangaji).

At present, the controversy section has been trimmed back by to give the impression that the only controversy surrounding Gangaji is that she married a man who cheated on her with one of his decades-younger students. Eli's dishonesty, and Gangaji's response to that, is a trivial controversy compared to the controversy which swirls around her lineage claims. The cheating business is a very ordinary human mistake, though a bit questionable for enlightened teachers of Advaita Vedanta. The claims to lineage are in a completely different and more serious category. Pretending that Gangaji is not really a teacher, etc is not going to make this controversy go away. (Iddli (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

In this “serious category,” we have Papaji’s own letters in which he wrote that he considered Gangaji his daughter and that he considered Ramana Maharshi to be his father and her grandfather. That is lineage by the everyday dictionary definition. Meanwhile, Webster’s dictionary says nothing under “lineage” about any necessity for “endorsement”. Likewise, there is no controversy over her reference to Papaji as her teacher and in turn Papaji’s reference to Ramana as his teacher. These are both well documented and such a historical line of teachers can also well be considered “lineage,” with all of these persons teaching/saying/pointing to “You are That.” In addition, there is the Ramanasramam statement affirming the legitimacy of literally everyone in lineage with Ramana, which is also what Gangaji says. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can provide criticism that that fits within wikipedia's core policies, I will whole-heartily support it's inclusion. Sethie (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pruning of questionable and self-published sourced material was long overdue and I support the gist of it. WP states that questionable and self-published sources should not normally be used. It says material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long (in part) as the article is not based primarily on such sources, it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and a large portion of the article was based on self-published and questionable sources that failed one or more of these tests. No self-published information that does not meet the requirements is acceptable, as it is better no information than misleading information since NPOV trumps. --Dseer (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that you say a "large portion of the article was based on self-published and questionable sources", when the vast majority of that was the content you added. - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But what about her message? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.206.142.10 (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the "teachings" section

Iddli- I am noticing you said you were going to remove all references to her as an awakened teacher, however I am also noticing you removed the section that describes what she teaches.

Granted there is one sentence about her lineage... I propose that the section be put back, minus the reference to teacher lineage. Sethie (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cantamagda has been adamant that we can't include any criticism of Gangaji as a teacher in part because Gangaji does not consider herself to be a teacher. (Please see Cantamagda's proof of this higher up on this talk page.) To include a teachings section in the Gangaji article seems to fly in the face of this, so I think it is best to stay clear of this. The nonteachings of nonteachers, who can't be criticized because the whole world is a dream ;-)))) ... it's all a bit too vague for a wikipedia article. Maybe some brave editors could start a new article called the Advaita Shuffle (Advaita Lite, that is. :-)) (Iddli (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

As usual, you distort what was written. I have clearly said that Gangaji is often presented as a “teacher,” and this would make it appropriate in like sense to present what she says as her “teachings” with the proviso that I’ve already made well clear that she herself does not consider herself a teacher for the reasons I’ve also well made clear. Similarly, any criticisms of her as a “teacher” must take into account that her “teaching” is pointing to your own self as the (criticized) teacher. This returns to the point I had previously mad, namely that neither the Gangaji Foundation nor Gangaji present Gangaji as an “elevated” teacher or “specially qualified.” To the contrary, the so-called message is redundantly “Just Like You” and “I truly have nothing to teach you.” - Cantamagda (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually went out and bought one of her books, and maybe Idli distored Cantmagda's words, maybe not (I leave that for you two to work out) however, Idli is correct, Gangaji explicitly claims to NOT be a teacher. I have added a citation for this and created an "activies" section, to try and describe what it is she does. Sethie (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet, she explicitly refers to "the teaching" (as spontaneous), refers to Papaji as her teacher, is obviously viewed as a teacher by many people, and is explicitly described as a teacher by the Gangaji Foundation. Of course, she also speaks of "the teaching of the psychedelics" she took as if the drugs are a teacher, but it would be silly to most people to call the drugs a teacher. So in speaking of her as an everday person, she may perhaps be said to be a teacher, but in terms of the teaching, the game is wide open like the chicken and the egg. Either is true, either is not true, but neither alone can be insisted upon as expressing the whole truth in this story. I also added that she's seen as a speaker, a lay or spiritual counselor, etc. which is obviously true on some level, for example, many people do go to hear her though not necessarily to be taught, and I don't know what else you'd (normally) call a person you simply go to hear other than a "speaker." I sometimes find it entertaining, and I suppose one might thus also call her (myself) an entertainer. The possibilities are truly limitless. Afterall, if she claims to be That and That is all, then what is she not? How far can one stretch the tale before the reader's suspension of belief is snapped? I did a substantial rewrite on the article overall, mostly enhancing the development section to give a better idea of her rather unusual background, which can be viewed both positively and negatively, including some focus on her experiences with Papaji. I admit, it tries to pack a lot into a little space, but with respect to copyright and space, I have left it at that for the time being. I think one could fairly say that it depicts the possibility that she's on the level while simultaneously bringing to the forefront the doubts one might reasonably have about a person with such a background, and absent any further comments, I leave it to the readers (or should I say, to "the teaching") to decide for themselves what to make of it all, or to take a psychedelic drug and realize it's all made up. - Cantamagda (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the previous teaching section was fine. I was attempting to adhere to WP:CON to try and find something that works for all of us.

Honestly, the removal of it and the reasoning for it, just don't resonate with me, at all. And this page isn't mine.... I think if this continues to be an issue we ask for wider community imput. [

Overall your changes look fine to me, and would you trim down the biography section? A lot of it? It feels out of proportion to me. [User:Sethie|Sethie]] (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I too was reasonably happy with the previous teaching section, but I do agree that the claim that "Gangaji traces her student-teacher lineage through Advaita Vedanta" and otherwise mention of Vedanta is likely contentious, for starters because the statement is actually someone's unsourced interpretation, not to mention the difficulty in assessing the truth of such a claim.

As to trimming, oh yes, it's long, and it may be out of proportion to her message, which is rather simple in a sense, but of course, this article is supposed to be her biography, and trimming the biography section would seem to go against that notion. But nonetheless I'll give it a look over and see what can be done to better it. - Cantamagda (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Added quote box

I'm unnattached to using the particular source I found (in fact, I'd preffer another) and given that she often says "This is my core message" I would like to use those exact words in a quote. Sethie (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Noncompliance with wikipedia policies

WP:V states: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

WP:SELFPUB states that:

Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

   * it is not contentious;
   * it is not unduly self-serving;
   * it does not involve claims about third parties;
   * it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
   * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
   * the article is not based primarily on such sources. 

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article.

To the best of my knowledge DO Publishing is not a reliable third-party publishing house.

Gangaji's self-published claims involve third parties (for example, Papaji). The claims are self-serving and contentious.

If this article is going to comply with WP:SELFPUB, the article cannot be based primarily on Gangaji's self-published autobiography and books and her website. (The link Sethie recently added a quote from and link to is not a fact checked article -- it is just Gangaji being asked her opinion on various topics.)

The most generous interpretation possible is to allow 49% of this article to be composed of Gangaji's self-published assertions.(Iddli (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC))

My initial response is- thank you for actually reffering to wikipedia policy! There has been so much of that NOT happening here.

I will nomiate it for deletion. Sethie (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

All the Gangaji advocate has ever offered is unacceptable, self-published materials about what Gangaji says or subjective claims which are falsely claimed as acceptable sources. I've repeatedly said per Wikipedia policy the article can't be based on such sources and anything contentious, unduly self-serving, making claims about third parties or events not related to the subject, etc., is not allowable at all, to no avail so far. I am grateful that Iddli has brought this violation to the forefront so clearly. So what if Gangaji said it, if inclusion violates Wikipedia policies, it can't be put in the article, end of story. The Gangaji advocate dismisses repeated concerns about this gross violation of policy and only focuses on suppressing critical material, which creates a misleading article in violation of NPOV. As Wikipedia says, and I repeat once again, zero information is better than misleading information. At this point, I think the Gangaji advocate has been given enough time and clearly failed to produce attributable sources to support the apologetically toned language, and the article is misleading, so I agree, the article should be deleted. Gangaji isn't that notable anyway.--Dseer (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Try reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA and then re-write the above paragraph

As it is now, it's ranting, raving and actually in violation of WP policies, hence it is a total joke to appeal to wikipedia polcies in the same paragraph!

BTW I'm not saying there isn't some valid ideas in your rant... Clean it up so it is worthy of a response. Sethie (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is ALL a joke. Goodbye.--Dseer (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed

Due to the unresolved problems with this article dating back years, I have boldly deleted the bulk of it, leaving only the intro and the appendixes.[6] As has been discussed above, the entire article was sourced to autobiographical material. While some autobiographical material is appropriate, this was excessive. I wouldn't object to seeing the article longer but it must have a better balance of 3rd-party sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)