Talk:Sadhguru

One - the film

He is part of this film's quest and journey, too.

• ONE DER FILM - eine moderne Reise zu einem zeitlosen Ziel This is in German language, but I am going to look for information about the english original.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.4.122 11:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

ONE : the Movie -, http://www.filmz.de/film_2007/one_der_film/ -- 88.72.4.122 11:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493155/

-- 88.72.4.122 12:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.one-derfilm.de/mitwirkenden.html

at the bottom you can find Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev.

-- 88.72.4.122 15:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.heiligenlexikon.de/BiographienE/Elisa.html

Mercury claim softened

I have visited the Dhyanalinga temple, and it is true that followers claim that ancient alchemical techniques unknown to modern science were used to solidify mercury at room temperature. I state here no opinion on the truth or falsehood of that claim, but merely not that it is a rather extraordinary claim. Rather than our simply stating it to be true, I think we should "go meta" and state what is unquestionable: that followers claim it to be true.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you're the boss. M.Nelson (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Symbol

• [1]
• [2] maybe the sign left above the triangle is a sanskrit letter?
• http://www.sadhguru.org/portal/index.php/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

Austerlitz -- 88.75.193.211 (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

'Future events' section

In my opinion this section isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. PhilKnight (talk) 8:33 am, 6 March 2010, Saturday (8 years, 7 months, 24 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

I strongly agree. Boromir123 (talk) 8:40 am, 6 March 2010, Saturday (8 years, 7 months, 24 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

Article Issues

Several templates regarding the article's quality and notability have been placed on the page. The edit unfortunately does not identify what parts of the article are questionable. IMO this article does not deserve these templates as it is properly referenced, is NPOV, and the subject is notable. If there are any issues with the article, can someone please point out. The template was added from an IP, and not a registered user. I've left a PM but the IP doesn't seem to be an active user and has no other edits. Regstuff (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Since this article has already been rated on the quality scale, there are sufficient reliable references for it, and it has also passed the notability test as seen on top of this talk page, I am removing the article issues templates since no specific issues have been raised either in the article or the talk page. If there are any issues, please raise them here. Regstuff (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done some copy-editing on this. I'm new but I don't see any major issues aside from the need for editing, which I've made a start on. ~~— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zulfah72 (talk • contribs) 13:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

BLP issues

I understand that there are plenty of charlatans etc in the sphere that the subject of this article operates. However, dedicated "controversy" sections are not usually a good idea and especially so in biographies of living people. Worse still when they appear as a list and are legal allegations that don;t even end up in the court system. Is there no other way to handle the issues? - Sitush (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad ISBN

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #70: "ISBN with wrong length", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Gnani Sannidhilo ISBN ISBN 978-81-879100-01-5

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 04:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Because it is causing a Checkwiki error #72: "ISBN-10 with wrong checksum", I removed the ISBN from the entry:

Dhyanalinga: The Eternal Form, ISBN 81-87910-12-1

I have tried unsuccessfully to locate the correct ISBN on the Internet. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Factual accuracy, neutrality tags?

Lots of tags have been added to the page in July 2016 about factual accuracy and lack of neutrality, but there seems to be no discussion or even an attempt at one on the talk page. Can the user who left these tags or anyone else please begin the discussion as to why these were applied.Regstuff (talk)

• It's been 10 days and no discussion. So removing the tags. If anyone sees any issues in the article that need to be resolved, please put it up for on this page for discussion.Regstuff (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I wasn't the earlier tagger, but I do think some of the tags may have been somewhat warranted. For sure the article's overall tone is still very autobio/fan-ish. (Unfortunately there's isn't a WP:AUTOBIO-FAN-ISH template :-) ) I dunno -- if it's failing WP:NPOV, it's only just over the line and I'm not sure it deserves a tag. Could we perhaps just do a bit of "neutralification" (if that's not a word, it should be) as we prune here and there. As a start, I just shoved a {{Better source}} onto the opening sentence, which currently points only to sadhguru.org. Sleety Dribble (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary content deletion by User:IndianEditor, bias suspected.

It has come to my notice that the user named "IndianEditor" has been removing properly cited content quoting flimsy reasons. I added a sentence to the "Rally for Rivers" section providing info on the vehicle that Sadhguru is using in the rally. That is information very pertinent to the rally, and there is no valid reason to remove it.

I went through the edit history, and the same user also deleted the entire controversy section. I strongly suspect that the said user is extremely biased in his opinions. I will look into restoring the controversies section with properly cited material if and when I have free time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HakunaMatata1993 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't this "The Quint" a tabloid? I think it's somewhat nosense criticism. This was about preventing river pollution. CO₂ is natural nontoxic gas essential for plant growth. Clothes manufacture and washing also an environmental burden.. should he have went the rally by foot and naked? —Mykhal (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This isn't a debate forum. As long as a submission is backed by proper citations and is relevant to the topic, it shouldn't be vandalized. If you have an alternate article disproving the Quint report, feel free to quote the study and cite the article. Also, if you actually read the wiki article on CO₂, you could realize how reducing CO₂ emissions is essential for environment protection. 210.94.41.89 (talk) 11:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarized?? And well, why not add this reference to all articles about environmental protection acts where their actors were not naked but clothed. By the way e.g. here one can discover that oceanic plastic waste pollution is more life threatening that carbon dioxide "pollution" (which I am not denying). Anyway, i'm unrelated to this, just wanted to express my undesranding of this particular IndianEditor's edit. —Mykhal (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

.. but i was unfortunately apparently misinformed what is the Rally about, now i understand the criticism more, and i'm abstaining from commenting this topic further. —Mykhal (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, my observations about User:IndianEditor is not limited to that particular edit, but his entire edit history on this article. In this particular case, I don't want to be a party to the debate on merits of Quint's criticism. The fact that this criticism exists is a piece of information relevant to the topic. In fact, I'd say this is the most relevant piece of criticism on Rally for Rivers, and has been quoted by multiple other news outlets too. That merits a mention in the wiki article on the same. HakunaMatata1993 (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

IndianEditor has been blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Page issue

1 page issue is listed as

"This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (June 2017)"

As far as I read article I didn't find anything like that So I think it should be removed GhostProducer (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Duplicacy of Rally for Rivers

Two similar versions of Rally for Rivers currently exists - one as a section in this page and another as a section in Isha Foundation. Should we remove the section from one of the pages and link the references to the section in the other page, in order to avoid redundancy? As the Isha Foundation is working for the rally as a team, I suggest we maintain the section in the Isha Foundation page and refer to that section from this page wherever necessary. @GhostProducer: the last manual change to the section on Isha Foundation page was recently made by you, what's your opinion? If no one has objection, we'll go ahead with deleting the section here in a week's time - on 9th October? - Sbhtta (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sbhtta: Hey there buddy First of all you are doing tremendous job 😊and as far as your message is concerned I suggest we should keep it on both pages with different text .And the Comment is made by Sadhguru as well as Isha Foundation.So its important to keep it on both pages. And one more thing is that number of celebrities should be reduced in Rally for Rivers section. What do you think about that.😉😉

@GhostProducer: Agreed, we can maintain different points of discussion and quotes on this page and the Isha Foundation page, depending upon the context of the entity being referenced in the sources. I also agree that the number of celebrities named explicitly in this section can be reduced. But I don't have a criterion for which names to keep and which to remove. Maybe we can bunch the names by the sources and quote only a couple of names from each source to reduce the number. I'll do that? - Sbhtta (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sbhtta: Ok then we should keep it on both pages with different text. And as Celebrities are concerned I think we should keep 2 -2 names of Politicians, Celebrities, Cricketers etc etc. As we don't have any rule for that. And it would cover every sector. And If you have any other suggestion please do tell that. Thanks GhostProducer (talk)

@Sbhtta: What do you think ???? Should I proceed deleting some names in Rally for Rivers Section. GhostProducer (talk)

@GhostProducer: Yes, that'll be great. Thanks! - Sbhtta (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Ping

@Sitush: have you got some appetite to take up your broom and clean-out this article? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said some years ago, as far as I am concerned the guy is a charlatan and his supporters are idiots for being deceived by him. I am way too biassed to do much here. - Sitush (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Osho

@Borris83: maybe you're right that Jaggi Vasudev is an avid reader of Osho diff diff, but Quaora and blogs are not the right kind of sources for such statements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

But it's interesting what a Google-search on "Jaggi Vasudev" "osho" presents, like this. Reminds me of some western guru's who offer expensive short-cut tours to enlightenment. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Science

@Iamgod12345: Can you please explain the issues you have with the sources I used in the science section. Reverted by you here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaggi_Vasudev&diff=808142516&oldid=808142052 One of the source is a well referenced blog post. The other is a search result of sadhguru's own website.

Others reading this please do chime in on how you feel about having a section on Sadhguru's views on science. Charsikid (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Charsikid: Have a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blogs_as_sources Iamgod12345 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iamgod12345: The blog I used is not a personal blog and not hosted on a generic platform. It is part of an organisation's domain and the writing is quite technical and well cited. Does this not make the source credible enough? For the benefit of other readers. This is the source URL in question - http://nirmukta.com/2012/07/26/jaggi-vasudev-doesnt-understand-science-or-the-nature-of-the-universe Charsikid (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Charsikid:

According to Wikipedia policies: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, web forums, blogs, and tweets as a source for material about a living person unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material

If you will read the article you will see the author has given his opinions which is against the policies of Wikipedia.

And the author is not expert in religion area and has written 1 article since 2012 which makes me doubt the author.

If you will read some articles on the http://nirmukta.com you will find the whole Website is biased towards Hinduism and works like a propaganda-like Islamic Websites nowadays are against Indian religions and are spreading fake information.

I really doubt who host the Website Iamgod12345 (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Iamgod12345: Currently the nirmukta article is the most comprehensive piece I have found outlining the contradictions and misconceptions in Sadhguru's views on science. It would have been useful to have a more mainstream sources in addition to this but I am struggling to find them since Sadhguru's own websites have spammed the terms 'science', 'engineering' etc. I will come back to this in a few days.

I think having a section on science and Sadhguru's views on it will be worthwhile to balance out the article a little bit. Need input from other contributers on this. Charsikid (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Charsikid: This article is already balanced and there is rarely any source supporting your Section Science. I too tried to find it but what I found were personal blogs and nothing. Iamgod12345 (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hinduism or not

Can we please get some consensus on the issue of Jaggi's religion ? There seem to be frequent edits just going to and fro between 'Hinduism' and 'None'. While Sadhguru has himself claimed to follow no religion some of the sermons I have seen from him do borrow a lot from Hinduism. He also is involved with a 'shivalinga' statue construction. Charsikid (talk) 04:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

He is Agnostic. You May Conceive it by Reading his Article On 'Sprituality'. David Tim (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

According to Oxford Dictionary Agnostic means

A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

But my friend he never said one can't know the Ultimate Truth. Right from 1992, he is Saying By Yoga you can know the Ultimate Truth.

Your Statement has no meaning Iamgod12345 (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

When Did he Say That he Follows Hinduism? Why don't you Keep It to None,Rather than Branding him With Hinduism? David Tim (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Read my comment here [3] Iamgod12345 (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

What an idiot you are,he has also been influenced by Buddhism,does that make his Religion as Buddhism?

David Tim (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

He is either Agnostic or None. David Tim (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand what are you smoking. If he doesn't tech Hindu teachings then what did he teach huh????? Islamic Teachings??? Iamgod12345 (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please Read my Comment over here - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaggi_Vasudev#/talk/15 David Tim (talk) 07:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Sadhguru's Religion

This Discussion was meant for 'Iamgod12345' I don't know why ignorant people like Iamgod12345 are Allowed to stay on Wikipedia. His teachings are not only based on Hinduism but also on Buddhism,Self Exploration/Experience and many more. Now does that make him a Hindu??? If Yes,then I think I should Create an Article on Ignorant People! And for God sake,please stop Editing the Article repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Tim (talk • contribs) 07:35, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

He teaches his Kriya Yoga. And that's not in Buddhism. It's in Hinduism and I already said His all work revolves around Hinduism. Eg. Shiva Lingam, Lingam Brhavai, Dhayana Lingam. He doesn't teach Buddha's way. His teachings are influenced by Shiva. Please don't edit again and again or you will be blocked. Anmolbhat (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please remember u can't edit more than 3 to times a day Anmolbhat (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't change it again and again. As I said He teaches Kriya Yoga Iamgod12345 (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey,Both you Indian fools. Does he Only Teach 'Kriya Yoga'? Isn't it a lot more than that? Being an Indian I can Conclude that 'Indian Ignorance' is the highest Level of Ignorance an Ignorant Person can Reach. Please back up Your Stupid Claims Before Talking Like an Idiot. And Who said he Doesn't Teach Buddha's Way And Only Shiva's way.There are Videos all Around the Internet where he Shows Buddha's way. So Please Die,the Earth doesn't Require the Existence of Arrogant Fools.

David Tim (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

And For Fuck Sake Stop Editing again and again. David Tim (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Why Don't You just Accept the Fact that he has nothing to do with Religion.Please Stop Claiming that he Follows Hinduism Without any Proper Backup!

47.29.56.93 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaggi Vasudev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927134803/http://travel.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?284848 to http://travel.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?284848

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

• The reason I am removing the Critisism here [4] is because of WP:BLPSPS. Now The Quint is not self Published source but as WP:BLPSPS says

Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals. We can't add criticism because the author's are not professional.

• And as far as this [5] is concerned. According to WP:BLPCRIME(For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction).So let the case get solved and then we will add that. It also voilates WP:LPNAME as said by policy: Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it.This happened in case of his wife.It also voilates WP:PUBLICFIGURE because there are not multiple sources as one can see here [6] the only thing we can get in hands are blogs. As said by policy : If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• And for this [7]. It goes same as previous.

As this a Article of living person we should not take chance.Anmolbhat (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaggi Vasudev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928125400/http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/News/Many_paths_one_goal82013.asp to http://www.lifepositive.com/Mind/News/Many_paths_one_goal82013.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Jaggi Vasudev's Great Grandmother who Fed Ants in the 60's/70's: 'a devil of a woman'

Jaggi Vasudev has used a story about the seemingly unusual behavior of one of his great grandmothers in his talks on numerous occasions. I think it would be interesting to know something about this person: is there any source from the 1960's or 1970's (or after) that says there was a supercentenarian in the Mysuru area? Being 113 or 114 years of age at death is a news-making claim, and I would imagine that the newspapers would probably document the peculiarities of this person's life as well. Starting from the most literal interpretation of the claim, who were his grandparents (and step-grandparents, if any) through his parents Dr. Vasudev and Susheela? I imagine that some of this information should be in the public record. Once we know that, then we can see if any of his four great grandmothers (or any potential step-great grandmothers) seem consistent with this story. If none of them match, then maybe this story is based on the story of a person from the area who lived to old age. Whatever the facts are, it would be interesting to know more. Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Philosophy

There needs to be a philosophy section here. Sadhguru is not in the tradition of astika by not believing in any scriptures. I think that is a very significant deviation of standard yogic tradition.--2A02:8388:3C1:4480:7C79:BFB0:AFE4:F7A1 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please fix wrong link

Where it says Pranayam should say Pranayama and the link should go to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama 23.240.1.247 (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I have made the correction. Thank you --NicoScribe (talk) 09:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2018

Jaggi Vasudev → Sadhguru – Article has recently been boldly moved because Sadhguru is supposedly a title rather than a name. However, nearly all sources that are mentioned in the references mention "Sadhguru" instead of to "Jaggi Vasudev" so Sadhguru serves apparently as the common name. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I was the person who performed the aforementioned move. I was, however, undoing another bold move made in August. Re: Marcocapelle's point about nearly all sources that are mentioned in the references mention "Sadhguru" instead of to "Jaggi Vasudev", this is mainly due to an editor doing a find and replace on October 1 which also changed the citation titles. Sadhguru is an honorific. FWIW, this article is currently a puff piece and not neutral at all. See also: my merge request over at Isha Foundation, a lot of which has been duplicated here.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Update: Since there are editors supporting this move, let me expand:

Sadhguru is an innnacurate transliteration of सद्गुरु or "good guru". A correct transliteration would be Sadguru (which redirects on Wikipedia to Satguru, something of a Hindi variant). Considering Jaggi Vasudev's international market, Sadguru is liable to be misread and mispronounced as "Sad Guru" which is likely what led to the use of Sadhguru. Jaggi's Hindi article correctly uses सद्गुरु (Sadguru) rather than सध्गुरु (Sadhguru).

There are and have been thousands of people in history who are considered Sadgurus and named using the honorific. As Satguru attests, Kabir is often addressed with a combination (or subset thereof) involving "Sant Samrat Satguru Kabir Sahib". The website of one of his "dhams" is at sadgurukabirprakatyadhamlahartaravaranasi.com. There is the contemporary Shri Sadguru Seva Sangh Trust (SSSST) aka the Sadguru Trust which refers to a Sadguru named Param Pujya Shri Ranchhoddasji Maharaj. Incidentally, this Sadguru is also known as "Gurudev" which also refers to another contemporary godman, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, i.e., Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader) as well as Rabindranath Tagore and many others and often used as an honorific prefix. A cursory look through Wikipedia unearthed these other Sad(h)gurus:

* Sadguru Appayya Swamy

* Sadguru Hambir Baba

* Shreedhar Swami: aka "Sadguru Bhagwan Shreedhar Swami Maharaj"

* Jangali Maharaj, also known as Sadguru Jangali Maharaj or Guru Maharaj

* Samartha Sadguru, a TV serial about Sai Baba of Shirdi

* Sadikshah Qadri, aka "Sadguru Sadikbaba"

* Shri Sadguru Nityanand High School, named after Sadguru Nityanand, aka Bhagawan Nityananda (with Bhagawan being another honorific)

* Vihangamyoga: "Vihangam Yoga is an ancient meditation technique practiced by Indian seers and sages. In the current time, it is established by Sadguru Sadafaldeo Ji Maharaj."

This is the tip of the iceberg in terms of the number of people referred to as Satguru or Sadguru and prefixed with these terms listed on Wikipedia alone. In other words, Satguru and Sadguru are honorifics and the variant, Sadhguru should be treated as the same. Even if otherwise, current news articles still routinely refer to Jaggi Vasudev without mentioning "Sadhguru", and if they do mention the title, they clarify which Sadguru they are talking about in the body. Furthermore, the use of the term has been popularised only recently. Anecdotally, old reports rarely insisted on the term. This 2001 interview with Vasudev quotes him saying, ‘I drive my own car, people still call me by my first name. I don’t act like a heavenly being. What else can I do to make it normal?’ asks Jaggi Vasudev.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

See for example this source and this and this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

One of those is a book by his follower (who would refer to her guru solely by his title). The other two are duplicates of each other. I thought my revert would clarify your point about "nearly all sources"; compare mentions of Jaggi Vasudev in the reference section before and after my revert earlier today to get an idea.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 19:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• Move Sadhguru seems to be the comonly used name, not just by his followers but by global bodies also. See UN's program schedule (pdf) & UN Environment (which ironically links back to this wiki page). Some examples from news: [1], [2]. And some examples from institutions: London Science Museum, Harvard Keynote Talk. Also, the fact that the word Sadhguru is an honorific shouldn't come in the way of the move. The original move was performed as per Commonly Used Name policy because most people know him as Sadhguru not Jaggi Vasudev. When people call him Sadhguru, they are not using the word as an honorific but more as a name for the person. Madrasiman (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
• Move WP:COMMONNAME, Economic Times, India Today and other media use Sadhguru, sometimes without using his name Jaggi Vasudev.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

That appears to be rather arbitrary. Here are two recent reports from your chosen publications which don't mention "Sadhguru" at all.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Cpt.a.haddock sums it up well. Sadhguru is an honorific and it violates Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Indic)#Titles_and_honorifics. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 02:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. Arbor to SJ (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. I disagree that proposed name would be honorific. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Nobody calls him SADHGURU in Coimbatore where he is based except members of his cult. We call him Jaggi Vasudev only. He is a selfstyled Godman who is perverting Hinduism and is actually an atheist. By L.Srinivas 28 October 2018— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.62.3.149 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Going by the comment, I'm marking this as an "oppose". I'm also striking out the irrelevant comment.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)