Talk:Haidakhan Babaji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as I know, Haidakhan Babaji himself never once claimed to be Mahavatar Babaji who initiated Lahiri Mahasaya into Kriya Yoga in 1861. They were many people at that time who loved to believe the Haidakhan Babaji is the same person as Mahavatar Babaji. But Marshall Govindan puts an end to this error in belief in his website. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's my understanding as well, which is why the article says that "It has been asserted by some," which is true but needs to be cited. Leonard Orr would be a good source. As for Marshall Govindan's website, I think WP policy is that a book reference would be needed to include that info. Has his expose been published in a citable source? Please go ahead and improve the article. I simply started it so that the various Babaji's could be distinguished from one another. It's still a stub. —Hanuman Das 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible addition of a picture?

I feel that it is imperative for this article to have a photo or a picture of the subject. The reason is obvious; Readers then could judge for themselves whether the drawing of Mahavatar Babaji and Haidakhan Babaji represent the same person. Any comments? --Siva1979Talk to me 02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not confuse the Babajis

There are three distinct articles about three distinct Babajis. Please do not continue the dubious practice of intentionally attempting to confuse them. The articles and their subjects are as follows:

Thank you - these are biographies, not mythologies. Start your own article on Babaji mythology if you like. -Hanuman Das 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Experiences

Dubious practice is performed here only by you, my dear Hanuman Das. You claim these 3 articles are biographies and yet you completely disregard even the slightest thought of looking into biography of Haidakhan Babaji (the one you speculate that died in 1984). There are several really good books (about experiences with Him, not mere beliefs) out there on the subject, which you don't seem to acknowledge. Why is that?

Please, do not misunderstand me, I respect your effort here, but it is obvious that you are not being objective (and, to me, you act like you own this place - which you don't). Why not present all relevant info on Mahavatar Babaji by not preferring only one idea about him? Hmm.

Why not present info of those people that have actually been blessed by Mahavatar Babaji, directly, in person? Is speculation, based on certain books, really sincere effort to present Mahavatar Babaji and His teachings? Is this the best service we can offer to Mahavatar Babaji and people at large? Hmm.

And, while we are on the subject, have you even met Mahavatar Babaji, Haidakhan Babaji or Hairakhan Babaji in person? -Nitya72 10:33, 7 June 2006 (GTM+2)

Added:
It is more clear to me now how things work here at Wikipadia. You "own" your article, so I guess I am sorry I have csused any troubles to you.

Good bye and Namaste, Hanuman das.

Nitya72,
You are more than welcome to add encyclopedic information to articles. But first please read the WP policies on verifiabity, neutral point of view, and no original research. The first says the you must cite your sources so that others can verify them - this means including page numbers. The second says that you may not attempt to promote a particular point of view or attempt to bias readers toward that point of view. The third means that you cannot "connect the dot" or derive theories of your own based on published facts. You can only present the facts.
I personally believe that with respect to the three Babaji articles, that this is best achieved by assuming that they are three individuals and making them strict biographies. If you wish to write an additional article about the mythological immortal Babaji supported by book sources, by all means do so and then link to it from the "See also" section of each article.
The most important thing to remember is that this is an Encyclopedia, western-style. It is not a place to report you personal experiences...
Also, you will note that the theories about various Babaji's being Mahavatar Babaji have been duly noted and cited in that article... and also in the individual articles. If you wish to add references or a list of specific people who hold such beliefs, that is fine, but extensive additions intended to convince people that the three individuals were the same is out of place in an encyclopedia biography.
My personal observation is that there are numerous examples in Indian and Buddhist history where people have been intentionally sloppy with facts in order to "prove" that some individual is immortal, when actually there were several distinct individuals that happened to have the same name (probably named in honor of the first individual) over a span of several centuries. Detailed historic reseach does usually manage to prove that they were indeed seperate individuals. One example is the Buddhist writer Nagarjuna, whose career traditionally spans a number of centuries, but who turns out to have been several distinct individuals with distinct writing styles and specializations....
Namaste
Hanuman Das 14:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)



Dear Hanuman Das,

thank you for your reply. Please, forgive me again for wasting your time.

I wish you God speed

namaste

Nitya72

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/i/Talk%7EHaidakhan_Babaji_4d08.html"