Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

A new approach to the conflicting views section

I'm not saying that you guys are wrong, and that this idea is in accordance w othadox hinduism. I am instead asking who has made this criticism? You did a great job of citing your sources for what could be criticized, but by who? Where have these criticisms been made (outside the wikipedia)?

Priyanath's second idea seems to address this concern nicely, assuming we can't find a verifiable expert making this critique. Providing the reader w all the facts, w/o making up his mind for him sounds like an excellent way to go. Sam Spade 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind I made this a new section. I'd like to point out that the conflicts outlined are not criticisms as you refer to them, but simply the elaboration of conflicting facts. I would be happy to integrate these facts into the article at the point where the claim they apply to is made. The only reason the conflict is explicitly pointed out is that they are removed from the claims into a separate section. It was my understanding (I may be wrong) that a separate section was the preferred way to present such conflicting evidence on WP. I think the separation requires a pointing out of what claim the conflict applies to. Are you saying we should simply move the conflicting facts into the main body of the article where each claim is made? —Adityanath 17:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Adityanath - I find the last round of edits that you've made very distressing, as you've deliberately taken out sourced information that helps people make decisions about these conflicting views. And you have done that several times in the past, and yet have the gall to send me a test2b on my talk page for deleting an unsourced section of text. Why don't you play fair? Why do you insist of these covert attacks on Gurunath's credibility? Hamsacharya dan 18:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, then Dan, why don't you stop intentionally confusing different Babaji's? That distresses me. Do you care? Do you have mystic powers? Tell me then, how many fingers am I holding up? —Adityanath 19:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
You still have not substantiated the claim that in order to be a Nath SatGuru, your own guru has to have died. The fact of the matter is, there is not precedent for that in the SatGuru tradition, which spans all paramparas - a SatGuru determines when and who he is to initiate, depending on the directive of God and his karma. Hamsacharya dan 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Stop confusing the terminology, you fill-in-the-blank. The Naths are not a Sat Guru tradition. They are a Guru parampara tradition. You don't seem to have studied enough to be able to make clear distinctions. You want to use info from one tradition to alter the rules of another tradition. The nature of the tradition is explained by the words sampradaya and parampara, which means succession in the same way as Kings succeed each other. You have not replied to me with how else you claim succession could be understood. I also put a verifying quote on your damn talk page. I'll repeat it here, maybe you brain will engage and you'll understand it when you read it.
"A Guru may have many disciples in his own lifetime. But he needs to choose a worthy successor from his many disciples to keep the flow of spiritual wisdom flowing from generation to generation. He therefore identifies as his potential successor the one disciple who is highly evolved and willing to surrender himself completely to the Guru to do his biding. The Guru then guides and grooms the chosen disciple for this eventual succession. Just before he departs this world, the Guru transmits all his Yogic powers to the chosen disciple through ‘Shaktipat’. The powers so vested become active in a disciple the day his Guru departs this world, thus turning the disciple into a Guru!" [1]
Note that this final shaktipat is a specific guru-making shaktipat and not the same as initiation into the sampradaya. In other traditions, it would be called baraka. Do I need to find more references? —Adityanath 22:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, we are getting close to the edge of some incivility here. Things should be sourced, as Sam said: "I am instead asking who has made this criticism? You did a great job of citing your sources for what could be criticized, but by who? Where have these criticisms been made (outside the wikipedia)?". Who says what guy is a teacher of such lineage, and who says he isn't? If a lineage is disputed, then we have to say by whom. If there is a verifiable cite, then we don't remove it. I haven't been keeping track of this lately, so I don't have an opinion on the actors here, or the theological import of the various arguments, but I want to keep the ball rolling, support Sam a little and ask everyone to please play nice. --Fire Star 22:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This guy doesn't even specify his lineage. That's the problem. He most likely doesn't actually have one. That's the reason for all the handwaving and unverifiable immortal dudes. —Adityanath 23:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a similar thing at Falungong with Li Hongzhi, who sometimes claims in his lectures to be a living Buddha or something like that. We report that the guy claims to have learned from masters, also that he has declined to name his teachers, and that he claims to represent the true dharma ("fa" in Chinese) of what he calls the "Buddha-school." And we have similar problems! We'd like to simply report what these people say, and reactions or rebuttals that are in the public domain. --Fire Star 00:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not true - Adityanath has his personal idea of what constitutes a specific lineage, which is not shared by Nath's anywhere that I've seen - not for SatGurus and not in general as the Nath's don't make a fuss about paramparas - they care about experiencing God. YGS has said that he spent his early years with the nath yogis, and has said at the age of 17 and 23 he had experiences of Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji and Sundernath, who both gave him kundalini awakenings. He has also said that Sundernath is a spiritual flame of Babaji, but I haven't included that here, because I think it would be too much for Adityanath to handle - even though this has lots of precedent, not the least of which is the very core of Advait philosophy. YGS does not consider Babaji to be his direct guru. I haven't discounted that Sundernath might be his direct guru, but I have not heard him say that in those words, thus I don't feel comfortable making that claim. Furthermore, according the SatGuru tradition, a SatGuru doesn't necessarily need a Guru on the physical plane - he may have one, but his status as a SatGuru doesn't require him one. Shiva Bala Yogi's guru was Shiva hisself, according to his tradition. He also claims to give the same yoga that Krishna gave - which both Yogananda and Gurunath have equated with Kriya Yoga. So who's right and who's wrong? Adityanath's demands for lineage are not substantiated in light of the precedents set by SatGurus who are known not by their lineage, but by their graces, the least of which is their ability to transmit shaktipat - kundalini energy for spiritual evolution. Hamsacharya dan 01:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Then just say he doesn't have a specific lineage. Which means he can't claim to be a Nath, because that requires lineage. Being or claiming to be a Sat Guru doesn't give you carte blanche to call yourself anything you want. —Adityanath 01:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Here you go Dan. Another reference to the nature of parampara:
"A point worth noting is that the guru takes over the office and powers from the master, who initiates him and thereby transfers and relinquishes to him his own role and authority. According to the Mrgendragama, the initiating master says to his successor: "The power and authority I resign to you now, you will henceforth weild until you transmit them to another." The rule is that there are never two masters officially active at the same time in the same guruparamparya."
This is from Andre Padoux's "The Tantric Guru" in David Gordon White's Tantra in Practice from Princeton University Press. Satisfied? —Adityanath 02:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I don't want anyone to think that I have an opinion of the qualifications of anybody we are talking about here, I honestly don't know. I am familiar with the Byzantine tortuosities of spiritual lineages and counter-lineages, however. I brought up Li because he is a "spiritual teacher" seemingly working under his own steam, who also claims to have been divinely taught, indeed to be divine himself. If YGS claims to be a Nath, but some other Naths don't accept it, we should be able to report it without implying ourselves that we believe one thing or another. Someone who has studied the issue may have an opinion, but a lot of folks reading here won't, so we should mention these things (accurately, of course) as drily as possible so that the verifiable citations, our "facts" such as they are, may speak for themselves. --Fire Star 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Conflicts with traditional views section has been rewritten to state facts neutrally. What do you think, Fire Star? —Adityanath 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I would change the "may be confusing" wording, which asserts a theory on Wikipedia's part, to a more discursive presentation, something like "There are reports that a similarly named teacher X was operating in the same general area in So-and-so's book Y" - the info is the same, and the coincidence would be interesting to a reader (mentioning such coincidences has precedents in academic publications, especially about cultural or linguistic matters), but we shouldn't say that anyone might have confused the two. --Fire Star 02:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, done. Would you now say that all of the counterpoints have been neutrally stated and adequately documented enough to remain in the article? —Adityanath 03:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


Mediator Fire Star finds article neutral and acceptable

An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie. I am satisfied, IMO, that this is currently a decent Wikipedia article, because it doesn't insult any party or our intelligence with its wording as far as I can see. Others may have varying opinions, but I even found it interesting to read, actually. I have a few quibbles about the lack of indirect object pronouns (who where there should be whom), and too many repetitions of the word "claim" where a synonym would do but those aren't substantive to the discussions here. --Fire Star 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Fire Star, I agree, reading the entire article, it does read more or less neutral. I realize it's still going to be worked on, including some minor things that I may tweak after things cool off, but at least it's in the ballpark, so to speak. — Priyanath 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
My POV is that since this is an article about YGS, that any conflicting views inserted should be from written sources that directly address YGS, rather than be inferences of other sources made by Wikipedia editors - which constitutes interpretation and as such, original research. Because of the many many perspectives within the Hindu tradition, and the numerous subsects, numerous texts, both ancient and modern, there are quite a lot of subtleties and gray areas - and many things that seem to conflict each other at face value. Therefore if some Guru or Academic holds conflicting views, then these conflicting views should be written specifically addressing YGS directly, and not somebody's views versus his views - especially in religion, that constitutes interpretation. You see, I can read source X and decide, due to my personal interpretation, that Source X is in direct contradiction to Source Y - but the WRITER of Source X may say that I took things out of context and in fact, there really is no contradiction. That is why Wikipedia has this policy of no original research - in order to prevent issues like this from happening. That is why the guideline is to minimize your own personal interpretation and make sure that all references address the topic as directly as possible. Many things need to be understood in context, especially when it comes to religious beliefs. Eastern religion and religion in general are particularly rooted on concepts such as faith and mysticism - the unknown. As a result, religious concepts traditionally have amongst the greatest degree of interpretive freedom. That is why the laymen tend to see differences and separation, and create barriers, whereas the great masters have almost always made it their goal to unify religions by showing that at their essence they are all the same. Hamsacharya dan 08:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You see, for every conflicting view, I could come up with 10 sources that conflict with the conflicting view and with each other. Which is exactly what had started to happen and the conflicting view section started to swell up with conflicting views of conflicting views. Religion is not science - it is religion - it is personal to any individual, and historically religious treatises are written with a mystical touch to feed the heart and soul and not with precision to feed the mind and intellect. It is full of allegories and parables - some people may believe that they are literal events, others believe that they are just fictitious lessons. The question we need to answer here is what purpose is served in having a conflicting views section in a biographic entry of a religious figure? As an example, Jesus also inspired conflicting views in his time, and still does so to this day - do we write about these views in his biographic entry on wikipedia or do we just write about his personal beliefs, the beliefs of his followers, and the recorded history surrounding his life and legacy? If we wrote every critics conflicting views surrounding Jesus, it would probably take up as much space as all the other articles on wikipedia put together. That is why I feel that at the very least, conflicting views placed here should be from reliable sources that take issue SPECIFICALLY about YGS, and not address somebody else's recorded statements of beliefs versus his beliefs - way too much room for error - plus it's original research. Hamsacharya dan 08:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you didn't actually look at the article on Jesus, did you? There are multiple sections on differing views, including questions about historicity, conflicts with traditional Judaic views, and the views of other religions, such as Islam. That's NPOV! —Adityanath 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, this article is fine according to WP:NPOV standards. The conflicting points come from tradition, are properly cited, do not assert a negative comparision with Gurunath, and let the reader decide for themselves how much weight to give them. For a deeper discussion of the NPOV standard, see the NPOV tutorial. The point, in case you missed it, is that you don't get to try to prove that your POV is correct or exclude cited information simply because it conflicts with your POV. —Adityanath 14:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I think the 'conflicts' section is done extremely calmly, without undue judgment, unemotionally, and impersonally. Some specific points may be open to discussion (I'm not conversant with Nath tradition like I am with Babaji and Kriya tradition, so I can't give an opinion on the Nath issues), but generally it reads neutrally. If you want to see some Guru/Teacher websites with much more extreme, personal, and judgmental criticism for contrast, look at Sathya_Sai_Baba, Prem_Rawat, Sri_Chinmoy, Swami_Kriyananda.
I think you could do alot more to flesh out YGS's biography and teachings, and add more meat to the article - it would give that section more weight. When I read the main section right now, I don't find much other than what YGS claims about himself and his spiritual experiences. Some suggestions: his organization's mission statement; Recent News; a short CLEAR explanation of his teachings (and not just his claims about Babaji the Nameless One, the Eternal Now, the Non-being Essentiality or himself as shiva shakti, born in sahaj samadhi, etc.). Look at other biographies to see what I mean. I also think that others would be more attracted to a teacher when his 'biography' is more than a series of self-important-making claims by the teacher. I'm not passing judgment on YGS here - I'm really trying to help you make a more neutral AND attractive article about your teacher. — Priyanath 16:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
You know what's interesting - EVERY single article that you have mentioned - Kriyananda, sri chinmoy, prem rawat, and even jesus - ALL of the criticism is based on published accounts that are directed SPECIFICALLY at these individuals. All of the references are to events or controversies about the individual that have an historical basis and an official written record. The crticism does EXACTLY what I proposed it should do to qualify to be part of the articles - it is not inference made by the wikipedia editors - aka, original research. It does not take some religious or historical claims by one writer and compare them to religious or historical claims by this individual - that is a comparitory research article. Only Sri Chinmoy's criticism section is suspect, since 2 of 3 of the references are to non-english articles, but at least the journal and exact dates of publication are given.
And for the record Priyanath - I appreciate your suggestions as to how to improve the article - I have and will continue to work on doing so, and on making it as nPOV as possible. Hamsacharya dan 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Dan, I personally think that 'published accounts' that smear individual teachers are not neutral, are biased, and are even unreliable - based on direct personal experience. You'll surely run into this with YGS as he gains in popularity - I guarantee it. The doctrinal issues raised in the YGS article are far more relevant and interesting, in my opinion. Obviously there's a place in Wikipedia articles for both: personal issues a teacher has, and doctrinal issues with a teacher - and you'll see that both are raised extensively in various articles. When the doctrinal issues have extensive citations and references, then they are not original research. In one way, YGS's spiritual claims are far more likely to come under the heading of 'original research', since they are not based on any referenced sources, but his own, entirely original, spiritual 'research', so to speak. But isn't so much of spirituality 'original research'? And that's why articles such as this are so subject to being subjective, and emotionally loaded. — Priyanath 18:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Dan's post-mediation additions

Dan, please do not insert a POV bias into the conflicting views. We have gone out of our way to make them absolutely neutral without a bias against Gurunath. You must not try to modify them in such a ways as to introduce bias or attempt to make them look invalid. Bolster your subject in the body of the article, if you can. —Adityanath 01:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath, I caught the same thing that Dan did - there have been many Satgurus that were householders. If you meant to say that 'a *Nath* Satguru must always be a sannyasin', then that may (or may not) be true. But it's certainly not true in many lineages. — Priyanath 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Priyanath, well the writer was a member of the Nandinatha Sampradaya which is a branch of the Nath Sampradaya, but the glossary entry does not specify any limitation. It is quite possible that there is widespread abuse of terminology going on. That is, using guru and satguru interchangable when they shouldn't be. I think an academic opposing opinion would be necessary, not simply examples which might only be examples of misuse of the term. —Adityanath 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath, in the Kriya Yoga lineage and tradition, Lahiri Mahasaya is definitely considered a Satguru, in the highest sense of the word - there's no mistake about that. I have great doubt that the majority POV would agree with Subramuniyaswami on this. That statement should clearly be qualified if it's going to be there, and there should be allowance for other 'experts' who clearly state that a Satguru is a realized Guru, with no limitations on whether they are householder or Swami. — Priyanath 02:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to make a note that I have included references that are NOT POV - that are taken DIRECTLY from the text sources that the conflicting views editors (Adityanath and Priyanat) have cited - thus I assume that they believe them to be reliable sources. The references I've included DIRECTLY contradict the conflicting views cited - 1. Lahiri Mahasaya was a householder (thus not a Sannyasin) and a SatGuru, 2. Yogananda in his autobiography cited that Mahavatar Babaji was called by Lahiri Mahasaya's disciples "Shiva Baba" and "Trambak Baba", further stating that these are avatars of Shiva. 3. That Nityananda also wrote that Gorakshanath and the 9 Naths are "Avatars of Vishnu, Shiva's manifestation known as Narayan" - thus connecting the references to Babaji as both Krishna and an avatar of Shiva from Yogananda and Lahiri Mahasaya to Gorakshanath. 4. That an avatar is defined by consensus as "the descent of divinity in flesh" means that he can take multiple forms and is "jivanmukta" meaning "freed while living" and thus beyond death - Gorakshanath was such, and lived at the same time as Mahavatar (Maha Avatar) Babaji - thus connecting the two beings in time - that means that they could be the same being, while Adityanath's interpretation of the cited texts is that it definitely means that they are different - this is original research.
Please also note that these edits were called POV by Adityanath, and subsequently REMOVED from the article, despite them being verifiable. Adityanath has also sent test2b warnings to me in the past for removing text that I considered POV and unverifiable - he has now also JUST NOW removed text which was verifiable, and falsely called POV. With the exception of the interpretations that I've included, which are inserted to point out that the other views are also interpretations, my text is sourced using the counterclaimants own references. Hamsacharya dan 02:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you are not being objective. Your edits are deliberately intended to bias the readers interpretation of the points brought up. You should be bolstering your subject in the main body of the article. There is a WP policy against rebutting conflicting views in the conflicting views section. I've read it when I was researching NPOV. Can't find it now, unfortunately, but you may rest assured I will point you to in when I find it. Meanwhile, since the mediator has certified the article neutral and is objective, I respectfully suggest you propose changes on the talk page for mediational review before walking all over the conflicting views section. —Adityanath 02:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan- 1. I agree with you. 2. Lahiri Mahasaya's disciples called Babaji those names 'out of respect' for Babaji, according to Yogananda. NOT because he was Shiva. Yogananda DID NOT say that Babaji was Shiva in that passage, or even hint at it. If it were so, he would have said so. But he didn't. 3. Your connecting Gorakshanath to Babaji through Shiva and Narayan and Vishnu is a bit of a stretch. Why not just say that 'all avatars come from God and are therefore the same in spirit, according to some believers?'
If you're sole claim that Babaji is Gorakshanath is based on YGS's visions, then of course there needs to be the opportunity for counter-claims. That's why this section needs to stay. — Priyanath 02:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dan, One more comment on your assertion that the titles of respect given to Mahavatar Babaji prove that he is an incarnation of Lord Shiva: the name 'Yogiraj' is also a title of Shiva - does that therefore prove that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is an incarnation of Lord Shiva? — Priyanath 03:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan's Rant

Of course, anything that actually cites wikipedia policy directly and addresses points directly instead of skirting the issues with subtle name-calling is a "rant", isn't it Adityanath. Hamsacharya dan 17:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a rant when you keep saying the same thing over and over again after people have respectfully stated that they disagree, as if you can change their minds by mind-numbingly boring repetition if only you repeat it enough and at great length. Give it up, you haven't and won't convince us. Take it up with a mediator; stop yelling at us. —Adityanath 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Priyanath - Re 2: Yogananda apparently has enough faith in his paramguru's disciples (one of which is his own Guru Sri Yukteswar, and several of which have met and been in the presence of Babaji according to Yogananda and other accounts such as Swami Pranabananda, Sri Yukteswar, and others) to quote them in his autobiography and include their opinions of what Babaji is. This quote directly refutes your interpretation that "there is no evidence that Yogananda ever said or wrote that Mahavatar Babaji was an incarnation of Shiva." In fact, he volunteered the information that the names were avatars of Shiva. That is exactly the reason why I have called these conflicting views original research! They are unpublished interpretations- another case in point: adding that information that Vishnu is "an entirely different deity than Shiva" when several references show that though they have different names and traditions, there is some esoteric connection that is referenced, and yet difficult to quanify (i.e. Bhagwan Nityananda saying that the Navnath are avatars of Shiva's manifestation known as Vishnu) . Which brings me back to my other point - religion is rife with interpretation by the laymen and therefore conflicting views are way too easy to create - that's why I feel that according to the guidelines of the original research policy, and the precedents of other spiritual biographies that YOU yourself brought to the table here, that conflicting views should be from sources that address Yogiraj Gurunath DIRECTLY - otherwise they are interpretations of what someone else supposedly meant, just like a reverend on the pulpit interpreting the words of Jesus. The wording that is used shows how weak this proposed argument is "Siddhanath's claims and purported visions appear to conflict with several historically traditional views" - this shows that 1. this is some editors interpretation 2. that this interpretation is based on a bunch of views from different sources, 3. that they "appear" to conflict, but don't "definitively" conflict.
The original research policy says that "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:
  • it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source, OR
  • it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
That means that the "proposed ideas and arguments" themselves have to be referenced to a reputable source - so, the particular case favored by the editor here is that "Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's claims and purported visions appear to conflict with several historically traditional views", and the synthesis of established facts here are the succeeding "conflicting views". What this policy says is that this "'synthesis"' that argues a "particular case" has to be attributed to a reputable source - meaning the position that "Yogiraj Gurunath is in conflict with these traditions" and succeeding arguments have to have been published elsewhere by a reputable source - otherwise it is original research. Furthermore, each individual argument or "conflicting view" here has several counter-arguments demonstrating that these arguments are themselves either "original" interpretations, or that they have been taken out of context (such as the broader body of knowledge and opinions in a sect, cult, or religion) in order to build a particular case favored by the editor. Hamsacharya dan 08:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, please don't rant. You're in the wrong, here. The article was judged to be neutral. You are changing it without discussion. And you appear to be acting out of anger. Step back from the computer for a day or two. Mmmmkay? —Adityanath 11:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath - why are you so fixated on me? This has nothing to do with me or you or what we believe about each other. Wikipedia policy is very clear here, and instead of addressing my "rant", which you can't because you know it's right, instead you are for some reason deciding to broadcast how you believe that I'm feeling and trying to coach me on how I should feel. Let's stick to the discussion that is being mediated here - the mediators have not yet made a decision here. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not true, Dan. Fire Star stated that the article was neutral and adheres to Wikipedia policy ("is currently a decent Wikipedia article") right here. The version he was referring to was this one. —Adityanath 21:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dan and Adityanath, first, I disagree with the claims of original research (unless the entire article is original research, since every single claim about Babaji is based on YGS's purported visions). And I personally believe that YGS is trying to jump on the Nath and Babaji bandwagons and claim connection to two traditions that are not connected.
What we believe here doesn't matter Priyanath - what matters here is what YGS believes, since this article is about him. Trying to make a case that he's "trying to jump on the Nath and Babaji bandwagon" by putting one's own interpretation into conflicting views (which haven't been published anywhere about Yogiraj and his beliefs - reliably or unreliably) is what is commonly referred to as original research. No original research is one of the policies of wikipedia. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That said, I think that Dan can reasonably introduce those Shiva-Babaji claims as a counterargument, even though a weak one, and a wrong one.
According to you - not according to Yogananda though. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If those arguments remain, I would also add that "names of Shiva are often given to Yogis as a sign of respect. For example, 'Yogiraj' is a name of Shiva, which doesn't prove that YGS is an incarnation of Shiva."

That would be your interpretation. Yogiraj means "master of yoga" - it is a functional definition. Shiva Baba means "Father Shiva" - you can't get any more to-the-point than that. Why wouldn't they call him "Vishnu Baba" or "Narayan Baba"? The fact is they didn't. Hamsacharya dan

But now we're getting into an article that will be an endless series of arguments and counter-arguments. What does a mediator say?

That's what I'm waiting to hear!! Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Because of the subjective nature of the article, I also propose that the section 'Spiritual education' go under a section 'Beliefs and Visions', since a normal biography would only include verifiable 'education' under the tutelage of a living teacher. Most of the 'Spiritual education' section consists of visions. If this section keeps that title, include only facts like 'in 19xx YGS lived in the Himalayas', etc.
I agree that the claim that only sannyasis can be satgurus requires a qualification: 'not all spiritual lineages believe this to be true. For example, the Kriya Yoga lineage believes that Lahiri Mahasaya, a householder, is a Satguru'.
The fact of the matter is that a SatGuru is one who has attained a high spiritual state known as Nirvikalpa Samadhi - there is no way to test that. These are the necessary and sufficient qualifications which are untestable. The testable necessary and sufficient qualifications are things like transmitting shaktipat, and prana - these are also things that would be elucidated by testimonials, which are rarely published by university presses. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I think this article still needs mediation - based on the intensity of the responses between Adityanath and Dan. The article is still essentially a vanity article, so I understand Adityanath's response. I would like to see an entirely rewritten article that is not so blatantly YGS self-promoting. I think in that case, there wouldn't be the need for such a strong response.
I'm happy and willing to do that but I don't have time because I've spent all my energy on this stuff - I want policy violations to end. This is Wikipedia and when conflict arises, the only thing we should be falling back on is the Wikipedia policies to justify our positions - not our personal beliefs. Why don't we do this - move the YGS page to a YGS/temp page, and I will remove the original research as well as rework the article when I have time to something that is more encyclopedic. Priyanath - I'm not here to fight and I'm not anrgy as Adityanath loves to claim - I'm doing this to uphold what I feel is right - and I'm constantly referring to wikipedia policy to do so, which nobody else is doing. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to refrain from making edits on this article until things calm down - I think it's become too personal on both sides (Dan and Adityanath). — Priyanath 15:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Priyanath, I agree with several of your points. I've put a qualifier on the satguru point, but it still need cites for the fact that the named gurus were householders AND that they were widely accepted as satgurus. We can't assume that the reader knows this.

As for the titles of Mahavatar Babaji cited, I have simply moved that Yogananda quote to the beliefs section. To prevent the endless series of arguments and counter-arguments, it is usual to put ALL arguments supporting the main view of the article into the main body of the article. It is not correct to put counter-counter-arguments into the conflicting views section. If the supporting arguments in the main section are strong enough, people will discount the conflicting views. Therefore, I have moved Dan's rebuttals to the conflicting views into the main body of the article where they belong.

Third, the conflicting views section is very carefully neutral. However, Dan, your additions attempt to interpret the facts for the reader rather than just present the facts. That is biased and POV. Dan, your supporting facts must all go in the main body of the article, and you can't tell the reader what you think of them or attempt to bias how they interpret them. If you can discipline yourself to do that, you will be more successful.

Thanks for being the voice of reason here Adityanath - it's obvious that you're an expert on these matters and have carefully researched what you're talking about. NOT!

Here is how you should proceed, Dan. Don't touch the conflicting view section.

You can't dictate how things will proceed here, Adityanath. You are just as biased as me, and it's obvious. The mediators will decide. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Discuss what you think its shortcomings are on this talk page.

I have - ad nauseum. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

And don't just blanket call it original research, it's not.

Actually it is - and anybody who reads the policy and makes a reasonable inquiry into what is going on here will see. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Discuss the little details that bother you, and let Priyanath and myself reword anything that we agree that you are right about. Add your supporting facts to the main body of the article and not as counter-arguments to the conflicting views section. The reason your article is so open to conflicting views is because it is extremely weak and many of your points are not well supported. Don't attack our facts, strengthen your original presentation!!! —Adityanath 16:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Dan, please read the assume good faith and don't be a fanatic guidelines, okay? I apologize for calling you a vandal on your first removal of information. (But this doesn't mean I won't call it vandalism on your third removal of the same information.) However, you are still not listening or compromising with your fellow editors. Almost all of your "discussion" on the talk pages is aimed at discrediting them or throwing the rule book at .

The fact that I can easily discredit them shows how weak they are. The fact of the matter is, wikipedia policy supports my assertions. The only counter argument you have is "no they dont!" "you're a fanatic!" Look how you've already changed your opinion about one of the sources that you had previously cited - first you made sure that the Bhagwan Nityananda reference was used to bolster your claim that Gorakshanath is mortal and buried, and now when I've used that same reference to make a counter-argument, you have immediately started discussing the shortcomings of that reference. And now you're calling me a fanatic - you again have no basis for it, and you just like to indulge in backhanded name-calling, as usual. Not a far cry from the behavior of NoToFrauds. Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not an effective path to dispute resolution.

No kidding. That's why I've asked the mediators to come in. Sam Spade, where are you??? Hamsacharya dan 17:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Dan, I've actually engaged in discussion with User:Fire Star about how to make the article more neutral and then modified it based on his advice! You haven't engaged with the mediators at all! User:Fire Star has already said that the article appears to be suitably neutral and cited, but you continue to disagree. Why not ask User:Fire Star and/or User:Sam Spade whether or not your approach is also neutral? You haven't really let them comment on your intended edits. You don't know whether they find your arguments about WP policy applicable or not, and yet you are repeatedly forcing them into the article. I think you are wrong about this. Why not wait for the mediators opinion? Afraid they will not side with you? —Adityanath 18:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

So please, read the two guidelines indicated and maybe modify your approach? —Adityanath 16:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Adityanath's proposals are generally quite reasonable. Do they follow Wikipedia guidelines? Perhaps a mediator can answer that question to everyone's satisfaction, to put an end to that part of the argument, especially this comment from Adityanath: "To prevent the endless series of arguments and counter-arguments, it is usual to put ALL arguments supporting the main view of the article into the main body of the article. It is not correct to put counter-counter-arguments into the conflicting views section. If the supporting arguments in the main section are strong enough, people will discount the conflicting views. Therefore, I have moved Dan's rebuttals to the conflicting views into the main body of the article where they belong."
Dan, 'Yogiraj' is a name of Shiva. From answers.com, and confirmed by other sources: "Shiva is known in Hinduism as 'Yogiraj' or 'Yogeshwara'"
Dan, Yogananda said that Babaji is an incarnation of Vishnu. That's a referenced, citable fact. He did not say that Babaji is an incarnation of Shiva, period. Your drew that conclusion based on the fact that names of Shiva are commonly given to Yogis, just as your own Guru has done with his name 'Yogiraj'. For you to draw that conclusion is original research, if anything is. But I'm starting to see that accusations of 'original research!' are about as useful as 'vandal!' I would be quite happy to just see a simple reference to the facts: Yogananda and Lahiri Mahsayasa both stated unequivically that Babaji is an incarnation of Krishna.
Adityanath, I propose including another definition of Satguru, to show that the one that you put there is not widely accepted. In fact, I could not find another person who limited Satguru to only sannyasis. I seriously doubt that is a majority opinion of the definition of Satguru.
Regarding mediation - If Fire Star is still inclined to be involved, I would invoke his presence. He has a longer background and experience on this battle. — Priyanath 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Much of what you've said here is simply not true priyanath. I'm sorry, but it's just not. Yogiraj means Master of Yoga. Literally. Shiva Baba means Father Shiva. Period. You don't call a yogi an avatar of shiva unless you believe he's an avatar of shiva. Period. That's like calling a cat a dog. Hamsacharya dan 06:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/o/g/Talk%7EYogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath_Archive_3_4fdf.html"