Talk:Mahavatar Babaji/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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

Vote

  • Do you think that Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji is another name of Mahavatar Babaji?
    • No ---Baba Louis 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • NO ---Priyanath 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
    • NO ---No To Frauds 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No ---Troy 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No ---Adityanath 22:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No ---Chai Walla 07:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No ---Siva1979Talk to me 20:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No Shiv-G-B is actually a name for Santa Claus, i.e. this portion of the vote is a theological vote and has nothing to do with the articleSethie 15:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you think that mention of Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji and Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath belongs in this article?
    • Maybe ---Baba Louis 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Qualified, see comment below ---Priyanath 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
    • NO ---No To Frauds 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Disqualified, because only his followers take him seriously, everyone else don't ---Troy 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but no more than a paragraph. ---Adityanath 22:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, in agreement with Priyanath ---Chai Walla 07:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Strong Yes This is an encylopedia. Why would it not include these claims? Sethie 15:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Priyanath: I think a short mention, at the end of the Post-Yogananda Claims section, is appropriate. Similar to what is currently there (the 12:38, 11 March 2006 edit): two sentences at the end of the Post-Yogananda section. This is entirely keeping with how much weight a relatively tiny minority POV should be given. Any more is Undue Weight. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOVUW#Undue_weight

Priyanath 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Priyananath

I agree with you, Priyanath, what is already there is enough. Though the article is already perfect without any mention of Mr. Shitole and his personal fantasies still I allowed that part to stay there as a compassionate gesture for his desperate crony, Hamsacharya Dan.
No To Frauds 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Lighten up, dude. Hamsacharya dan 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to be disrepectful to Hamsacharya Dan or YGS. For that reason, I think that the name that YGS chooses to use for himself should be there, rather than his birth name. And I would delete 'solely his own', just for example, because some of his disciples seem to think the same way that he does. Their view, though it is in the extreme minority, should be represented as such, but respectfully. I'm taking a time out from posting, editing, and reverting for a few days, because I think there should be some discussion about all of this, and the current version is a good starting point, because it does reflect a majority POV.

Priyanath 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

Sockpuppeting Policy Reminder

Sockpuppeting abuse is banned by Wikipedia policy (see WP:SOCK). This is punishable by long-term blocking, or even being banned from wikipedia for good. Hamsacharya dan 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-admin reminder

Everyone should be aware that User:Hamsacharya dan is not an administrator and that he should use proper channels rather than blanket warnings if he believes there is any abuse occuring. —Adityanath 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already done so. CheckUser sysop jayjg (talk • contribs) has confirmed that Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla are sockpuppets, as well as NoToFrauds/TroyVaughn/82.15.17.152 --Hamsacharya dan 20:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and he is wrong. I will expect you to put a retraction of this claim in every location you have put it when this is confirmed by a second opinion. Meanwhile, I'd be more cautious in flinging around accusations if I were you. People do travel together and work from the same cybercafes behind a single router, you know. —Adityanath 20:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent Edit

1. Moved the Hariakhan Baba paragraph above Post-Yogananda Claims. According to that entry Hariakhan Baba taught from 1860 (before Paramahansa Yogananda was born) to 1924 (before the publication of the Autobiography of a Yogi in 1946). People accepted and revered Hariakhan Baba as the Babaji since pre-Yogananda times. The timing of his appearance also coincides with Lahiri Mahasaya's Kriya Yoga initiation from Babaji (1861).

2. Corrected a minor spelling error from Hari Dasa to Hari Dass.

3. Added Roy Eugene Davis' name and book as support for the Mahavatar Babaji/Hariakhan Baba theory. Basically, to show that there is someone from the lineage of the author of Autobiography of a Yogi who agrees with Dass and (Mahendra) Baba's conclusion. Roy Eugene Davis was ordained by Paramahansa Yogananda himself in 1951. So, for someone like him to agree that this Hariakhan Baba is the same as the Mahavatar Babaji mentioned by his Master and venerated by all legitimate kriyabans from the Lahiri Lineage is not a light matter.

4. Added Sidhoji Rao Shithole's LEGAL and PROPER name.

No To Frauds 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edit of the Hariakhan Baba paragraph, with the added information about Roy Davis, does add to the information about Hariakhan Baba. But it still deserves to be back in Post-Yogananda Claims, as Baba Louis properly did. The book about Hariakhan Baba was written in 1975. Even though he was purportedly alive in Lahiri Mahasaya's time, the claims that he was the same as Mahavatar Babaji didn't appear until long after Yogananda's writings - thus it's a Post-Yogananda claim.Priyanath 05:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking in terms of those who believe in the avatarship of Hariakhan Baba and his being the same as Lahiri Mahsaya's guru. He was already teaching long before Yogananda was even born, in fact even before Lahiri Mahasaya started his ministry. There are accounts of Panchanon Bhattacarya as well as Tincouri and Ducouri Lahiri handing prayaschitta money directly to Babaji, and also a personal visit of Babaji to the house of Lahiri Mahasaya witnessed by Pranavananda. So it is somewhat safe to conclude that Mahavatar Babaji was a "normal" human being intermingling with people in civilization, though probably exaggerated thru time. So, what we need here is a book published before Autobiography of a Yogi saying that the Baba of Hariakhan is Lahiri Mahasaya's guru? What if I can provide that? I mean, maybe not verbatim but clearly implying that idea.

No To Frauds 14:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yogananda first began mentioning Babaji in the early 1930's (1930- Super Advanced Course Lesson 4), and telling parts of the Babaji story in 1937 (magazine articles in 1937 tell Babaji's story). Too many people seem to conveniently 'imply' too many things. If there was something verbatim published before 1930, that might be different. Priyanath 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the SAC published in 1930 or the recent (Kessinger's) version of the SAC? The credibility of Kessinger's SAC is in question. SRF does not accept it as authentic. If you have Kessinger's version then it is arguably 1930s, in fact it was just published three years ago! Are you implying that Yogananda created Mahavatar Babaji? that Babaji was practically non-existent and no one else knew or wrote about him prior to Yogananda? What if they do not use the word Mahavatar but only Babaji or Baba yet they directly imply that he is the same as Lahiri Mahasaya's Guru?

No To Frauds 02:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of an original SAC. I've seen the original. It is unarguably not just 1930's, but specifically "1930". I'm guessing that Kessinger's is fine, too. A publisher reprinting out-of-print books depends on accuracy - they don't seem like a half-baked outfit. SRF wouldn't accept it as authentic because they don't like people having the earlier lessons, on the open market yet, so they are probably just trying to discourage people from buying it. Yogananda didn't create Babaji, but he is the most reliable authority who has written at length, in my opinion. Is there written material about Babaji published before 1930 that is clearly about Mahavatar Babaji, and not just implied, or not just the opinion of someone like YGS? Or that directly talks about Lahiri Mahasaya's guru Babaji? Surely if there was something like that, it could be mentioned along with the other 'buyer beware' Babaji claims, maybe in its own separate 'Other Claims' category. I don't believe that Roy Davis is an absolute authority on Mahavatar Babaji. Which other disciples of Yogananda support Davis's claims, if any? Priyanath 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Hariakhan Babaji belong below the Claims heading. Perhaps he should be moved up. I am not sure of the relative dates, myself. Adityanath 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed All References to Shitole Until A Consensus is Made

There is absolutely no sense in adding Sidhoji Rao Shitole's name and material in this article. So what if Shitole claims to have met Babaji? Hundreds of people claimed to have met Babaji. Why would a mere claim to have met Babaji qualify someone to be included in an encyclopedic article? What did Shitole actually add to the information about Mahavatar Babaji that is already there? Nothing! If an article states that a chimpanzee is a monkey do we add the name of every single person who says the same thing? According to Mr. A a chimpanzee is a monkey. Another person Mr. B claims that he have personally seen a chimpanzee and says that it is a monkey. A certain Mr. C from State, Country wrote a book "Banana of Freedom" in that book he categorically proclaimed that a chimpanzee is a monkey! Is this how we are supposed to join minds in creating an encyclopedic article?

Adding Shitole's name, the name of his book and excerpt from the book does not enrich (add anything material or relevant) to the article Mahavatar Babaji. It only furthers the personal interest of Shitole and his cult. If Einstein would debate with the bum on the street, it would only benefit the bum and not Einstein, because the bum will be popular! This is what we are doing here with Shitole, we are making him popular by sticking his name in an article about a legendary figure who is actually venerated by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world. We are giving Shitole free advertisement worth thousands of dollars and he is giving us his non-authoritative non-essential completely immaterial and irrelevant words in return! What a bargain!

No To Frauds 17:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

NoToFrauds, I believe that the first paragraph under 'Post-Yogananda Claims...' qualifies YGS's claims sufficiently, especially 'Some of these stories conflict with the details in Autobiography of a Yogi, and some contradict each other. There are different opinions on whether these stories refer to the Mahavatar Babaji that Yogananda wrote about.' I also think that YGS, as much as I have doubts about his claims, has enough of a following, minority though it is, that it should be here. I don't have the time right now to get into a revert war here, so I hope that Fire Star's edit will be maintained. Priyanath 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Brother, you are a legitimate kriyaban why would you let the article about Mahavatar Babaji be bastardized like this? Don't you believe in Babaji anymore? Can you give me even one logical convincing rationale on why you believe the pre-Shitole Mahavatar Babaji article NEEDS Shitole's name, book and claims for it to be complete? Because that is exactly what all of these agreeing and compromising means, that the article was incomplete without the inclusion of Shitole's name, book and claims. --No To Frauds 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe the article is complete without any of the Post-Yogananda claims. In fact, I don't believe any of them. If this was my own personal Babaji webpage, I would remove all of them. But it's not my page. So these other claims that come along now and then are qualified and questioned by the introduction to the Post-Yogananda Claims. That's sufficient for me. Priyanath 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change to paragraph

Based on the fact that none of the other editors of this page believe that Shiv-Goraksha Babaji is the same as Mahavatar Babaji, and the fact that the unique name that YGS uses for the being he encountered is Shiv-Goraksha Babaji, I believe the following paragraph is more clear about the claims of YGS and the relation of those claims to the believers in the subject of this article. ---Baba Louis 16:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In his autobiography, Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath has written about his personal experiences with a being he calls Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji and his belief that this being is one and the same as Mahavatar Babaji, Gorakshanath, and Adi Nath. This belief is not necessarily shared by others who follow these paths.


Purple Prose or, What's wrong with this paragraph?

Anyone objective care to comment?

In light of the claims about Mahavatar Babaji that have come about after the publication of Yogananda's landmark exposition Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, believed by his disciples and devotees to be a modern Himalayan Nath Siddha and Living Master, and to have been transformed by Babaji's presence and grace in his early life, has made it part of his work and teachings to clarify this lofty being's origins and essence. His unique perspective is readily available can be found in his book Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis or in person at one of many satsangs he holds all over the world for sincere seekers.
  • Is this article about Mahavatar Babaji or this Yogiraj fellow?
    • Babaji, I thought. I've bolded the non pertinent material above... Chai Walla
  • What's with "lofty?"
    • It's unnecessary. Being doesn't need to be capitalized either. And needs an apostrophe. The whole thing is rather awkward. Chai Walla
  • Since the book isn't being quoted, can't it just be listed as a reference?
    • That's where I'd look for references. Chai Walla
  • Any other comments?
    • Doesn't need to say so much about Yogiraj. Doesn't he have an article of his own? Needs to say more about Yogiraj's ideas and views about Babaji. What makes his views any different from the preceding fellows? Sounds like more of the same-old, same-old, to me. So far, it doesn't seem unique at all - struck. Chai Walla

---Baba Louis 05:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I've taken out most of the information on Yogiraj, and just write his name to cite the reference to the text. I HAD written more IN THE PAST about his ideas and views Chai Walla but other editors want to see LESS, rather than MORE like you are requesting. So, I'm caught between a rock and a hard place. Please see the new edit which is much reworded. Hamsacharya dan 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How about you put your propsed paragraph on the talk page for discussion. This is a good way to defuse an edit war. Be patient and leave the article alone for a few days and take your time to discuss things here. Much better use of everybody's time. ---Baba Louis 06:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my primary comment is, words of praise do not belong in an encyclopedia article, even a religious one. Make that especially a religious one. That's what gets most people up in arms. Not the content but the tone. This is not a hymnal. ---Baba Louis 06:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure Baba Louis, I'm very open to that. My latest version does not contain any praise about Yogiraj Gurunath, so please specify what you're referring to. The quote from the book is not considered praise because it is statements of opinion about the character of an personage. Please see similar quotes from Yogananda's excerpt at the top. Similar statements of what one might consider praise, but are simply his opinion on the subject. Hamsacharya dan 06:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph

I'd do this:
  • Don't need full title here as it should be in the references.
  • Put the form of Babaji unique to this writer up front in the list
  • Dump the purple prose, the quote speaks for itself and presumably so will the article on this form of Babaji.
  • Don't need to repeat the title, it is obvious from context.
  • Now you have room for a few more actual facts. What do the other followers of Babaji think of these ideas? Do you know? Will you let them say?

Here is a reprint of my version. Let's see what your preferred edit is:

In his autobiography, Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath has written that in his estimation, about Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji and his belief that (he/she/it) is one and the same as Mahavatar Babaji, Gorakshanath, and Adinath are one and the same being - a pure manifestation of God, whom he calls "Nameless One" and "Eternal Now". Of his experiences of this Being (reprinted from Wings to Freedom): he writes:

It seemed like a vast expansion of inner space, in a different dimension. To me it was like a limitless nothingness, so blinding and bright that it appeared dark, like a massive benevolent black hole, the likes of Mahankala Shiva....This light is always there when a person is totally dissolved into the "Eternal Now", called God. he is not even an Avatar, not even a Divine Being. He is beyond that, a total Is-ness of the zero naught zero Being, Non-being (the formless one), and more. The more I talk about Him, the more of a mess I get into, as the King is beyond all words.

Hamsacharya dan 06:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not just my opinion we're after here. Please wait a few days for all the editors of this article to chip in. Haven't you yogis mastered patience? That's right, I know you have. ---Baba Louis 07:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and don't pretend you are somebody else when you use your IP. ---Baba Louis 07:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good Baba Louis. Just please note that there are a couple of very biased editors named NoToFrauds and Adityanath. NoToFrauds has already been banned once. Please see information on my talk page for my list of evidence. I don't count their opinions in this discussion. Editor Priyanath has been very amenable to discussion and I have come to agreements with him in the past. Please understand Baba Louis, that I have been patient for 2 weeks with my posts, but they have been vandalized often by the above 2 editors. The current version that we are discussing is the most amenable - and it is going under the post Yogananda claims section anyway, so that it is as friendly to other editors as possible. Let's go with your current version, because all this talk has been overly ridiculous - and I'm not referring to OUR discussion, but also the numerous discussions with the other editors, in which we've already come to an agreement. By the way, NoToFrauds very official looking cease and desist note on the IP sockpuppet talk page is fake and you can see the administrator CambridgeDayWeather's comments on that on my talk page. Hamsacharya dan 08:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you also seem to me to be a "very biased editor"—if you weren't, there wouldn't be this problem. All editors get they say in this poll. If you want, make it into a vote. What do you think would happen if we asked all editors whether this Yogiraj and his Babaji are even worthy of mention? If the majority said no, would you accept it? ---Baba Louis 14:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan Kogan is incapable of producing a NPOV presentation of Shitole anyway since he is emotionally attached to him like a puppy to its master. He (Dan) is one of Shitole's ordained "teachers" his name is listed in their web page complete with his picture.
The article on Mahavatar Babaji is already perfect without the inclusion of Mr. Shitole's personal propaganda, the same is true with the Kriya Yoga and Nath articles. Dan Kogan must prove that the article is incomplete without the inclusion of Mr. Shitole's fantasies.
The reason I was banned was because Dan went around crying like a child who lost her mother to various sysops about my benign edits in a Talk Page just for humor. We have been quite peaceful and content with the article and the few tweaks and enrichments everynow and then that is characteristic of WP until this nuisance cultist came along and introduce massive mounds of cult-promotion trash into a decent respectable article.
I recommend that Dan Kogan be banned as well as all the IPs he has been using to vandalize this already perfect article.
No To Frauds 12:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored to the 01:28, 9 March 2006 Version by Adityanath

That version by Adityanath is already perfect. We will not let the article on Mahavatar Babaji be tarnished by the personal propaganda of con artist Shitole and his "neuroscientist":) bliss bunny.

No To Frauds 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed Shameless Self-Promotion of Unknown Person Claiming to be a Nath Yogi

Babaji is generic, it means revered father, in this particular case however we are referring to one specific Babaji, the one mentioned in Autobiography of a Yogi. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's words contradict those of Yogananda, which leads us to conclude that he was speaking of an entirely different Babaji, a fabricated one, apart from the Babaji that we are tackling here.

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is a fake Nath Yogi, he does not have a valid sampradaya and that is the reason why he is clinging to his fake Babaji story. The name (which are actually titles) Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath meaning King of Yogis, Nath Preceptor and Nath Adept was not bestowed upon him by his Guru or a person in authority, he made it up himself.

This Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath should be shunned. Please help me in preventing his cronies from ever touching this article again.

No To Frauds 00:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that NoToFrauds has been labeled a vandal by other Wikipedians [ref]
I believe that there should be a separate page for "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" or whatever the precise name that YGS uses. Let that page make whatever claims it likes and link to Mahavatar Babaji. Babaji is not my tradition, but I have my doubts about YGS's Nath qualifications..and that is my tradition. If he isn't legit, it would be better (for him) to stay off Wikipedia as all these doubts will be documented... His follower may not be doing him a favor... –Adityanath 02:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Adityanath, This is enlightening to hear that Mahavatar Babaji is not part of the Nath tradition. I agree, the YGS promoter(s) should put their ideas somewhere else.Priyanath 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
Well, I just said I had my doubts. I have a list of questions and it all depends on the answers to them. See my talk page.
Still it is clear that the Yogananda folks here don't agree with the Shiv-Goraksha Babaji = Mahavatar Babaji equation. That should be enough to say the former should have a separate page where that claim can be made and wikilinked to this article. As a Nath, I don't agree with the Adi Nath = Shiv-Goraksha Babaji equation. I also don't think Gorakshanath = the Immortal Mahavatar Babaji - according to Bhagawan Nityananda, Gorakshanath's tomb is at Nath Mandir near Ganeshpuri. The immortal don't usually have tombs :-) –Adityanath 05:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, misread that. I have my doubts about the authenticity of YGS's connection with the Nath tradition. I'm sure Mahavatar Babaji is not part of the Nath tradition. :-) –Adityanath 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to NoToFraud's Revelation of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and Dan Kogan's Modus Operandi

NoToFraud's comments are without ANY verifiable references, and are therefore baseless slandering of a personage. He has been labeled a vandal by other Wikipedians [ref] It should be noted that Adityanath has never claimed to be the world authority on the Nath tradition, and these comments are his POV. His certainty that Mahavatar Babaji is not Gorakshanath is also his POV, as are his other certainties. My POV is different. Yogiraj Gurunath is very verifiably a Nath - his guru is Raja Sundernath, who was the Mahant of the Goraknath temple in Gorakpur in 1924. Please see Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath Talk page for more information. Raja Sundernath is known throughout the region as an elevated saint, his picture can be found at numerous temples from Nainital to Badrinath, and he can still be found at Alkapuri, purportedly in his Sanjeevan body rooted in Svaroop Samadhi. He will tell you that his direct guru by personal initiation is Mahavatar Babaji. His claim is that Mahavatar Babaji is the same as Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji as well as Adinath, as well as Gorakshanath. This claim fits under the section on the Mahavatar Babaji page regarding Post-Yogananda Claims. ~Hamsacharya Dan

Adityanath, you've misread my words (once again). I've said specifically that you have never claimed to be the world authority on the Nath tradition. Do you claim to be so? If you do, then we can go from there. I'm not here to slander anyone, and if you read my words about you as biased or fueled by any emotion, then that is not correct - I am responding specifically to you CLAIM that you are CERTAIN that Mahavatar Babaji is not Gorakshanath. So, if you want to ask ME "how would you know", then I ask you, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THIS? Is your knowledge based on experiences or book learning or both? Have you ever been to the Himalayas or is your knowledge based on reading others' words? Have you ever felt a kundalini transmission? Have you ever gotten a Ph.D. in religion and spirituality? Have you ever written books on spirituality? Have you ever read the classical texts of Sanatan Dharma? What specifically are your personal qualifications to make that claim with any veracity? Regardless, your POV claim is known as an opinion and not as fact - and that is what my message was meant to clarify.
Say, H.D. What makes you say I am not an expert and scholar of the tradition? How would you know? In any case, I do speak with some authority on the subject as I am an initiated Nath. Are you? My understanding is the YGS almost never gives his Nath initiation, so I rather doubt it. :-) —Adityanath 02:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Your understanding about Yogiraj is based on what? I'd like to know where you get your information, as nobody has so far put verifiable references regarding Yogiraj. Yogiraj has given his Nath initiation, and he has given it to me. Yogiraj's initiations are true initiations in which his Kundalini shakti is esoterically connected to the kundalini shakti of the disciple - in this way the kundalini of the disciple is awakened to the 1st layer of awakening, and the disciple becomes Dwij - "twice born" or "rebirthed by spiritual baptism" - the TRUE meaning of baptism. A true Nath initiation can be highly ritualized or it can be entirely without ritual - the lowest common denominator of any initiation, or diksha, is the awakening of the kundalini shakti. If this has not occurred, then no true initiation has taken place - there is just an exchange of information by ritual. The SatGuru thusly takes responsibility for the spiritual evolution of his disciple. This is my POV and my OPINION, which is based on Sanatan Dharma. Hamsacharya dan 05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Great, Dan. You're the expert. Write an article. Where it belongs: Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Temp. —Adityanath 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It belongs where I put it Adityanath - available to all who are interested in Kriya Yoga, Mahavatar Babaji, the Nath Sampradaya, and Meditation. I wont state the information that I add as fact, nor will I overburden pages with long text, and I will make sure that it includes a POV disclaimer, as you've noted in your original comments to me - which I appreciated. The biased attacks are unnecesssary. If you don't like me because I've hurt your ego by saying that you've never claimed to be an expert, then so be it.
No it doesn't. That's what Wikilinks are for. That's what all the other editors here are trying to tell you. Duh. —Adityanath 06:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about????? How is your inclusion of writings by your Guru Mahendranath on the NATH page any different??? I have never removed them, but have only added to the page with my POV information. ALL information is POV information unless an independant AUDIT is made. Hamsacharya dan 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't removed anything either. I've moved it to the right place. An article about Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. In case you haven't noticed. every page on Wikipedia is equally accessible to all people. You are trying to promote your Guru in a page about Yogananda's guru's guru. Nobody but you thinks your Babaji is the same as his Babaji. All the other Babajis now have their own pages so that people can keep them straight rather than intentionally confusing them. To fit into the structure of this article, you have one factual paragraph to come sequentially in chronological order after the paragraph about Haidakhan Babaji and preferably no longer than that paragraph. Make of it what you will and put the rest on Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. Or revert again and risk getting banned for not working out a compromise with the other editors of this article, who are tired of arguing with you. My turn. I agree with them. —Adityanath 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
God didn't write the article in the first place Adityanath - someone with a POV did. Thus the structure of the article is open to interpretation. There have been just as many people reverting back to my edits as people altering my edits. Nevertheless, I will comply with keeping one paragraph in here. Hamsacharya dan 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean comply again. It seems you already had come to an agreement with the other editors about this before, but simply waited a few days to put your long over-prominent and out of chronological order paragraph containing promotional language back into the article. I was trying to help you and advise you how to get along on WP, but if you keep up this sort of stuff, I will join those who oppose you as they seem to have plenty of justification for doing so. —Adityanath 07:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like you've already made up your mind Aditya...PLUS, the agreement I made was adhered to (with Priyanath), so ONCE AGAIN, you accusation is FALSE. It's NoToFrauds who has decided to rid any trace of Gurunath on wikipedia, and I have made edits to revert that action. - H. D.
Sounds like you have no idea how Wikipedia works, Dan. You put in your last update comment, "you make a valid point Aditya, but not valid to change my wording." Well, yes, it is valid. Again I point out that WP is a collaborative and cooperative venture. Once you submit your writing to WP, you don't own your words. Remember what it says below the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.
Now to the problem. You paragraph reads like a promotion pamphlet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or an advertising venue. I'm about to bring your multiple reverts to the attention of the admins. So please start learning to play well with others. This talk page is proof that you do not easily accept the opinions of other editors or compromise well. I've been trying to help you learn how to get your information onto WP without excessive dispute. Part of that is to put the BULK of information about a subject into an article of the same name, rather than trying to PROMOTE the subject in other articles. Do I have to get the admins involved for you to take a good look at yourself from a neutral point of view? You and your teachers pov is a minority pov with respect to a number of subjects. You are not going to get to take up major space in articles where your viewpoint is in the minority. People have pointed out to you the guidelines on this already. I don't understand why you keep trying to insert your promotional material. —Adityanath 12:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Your threats don't scare me Adityanath - you do what you have to do. My edits are not shameless self promotion. I took your prior suggestion regarding including a POV addendum to comments, and the information I've added to these listings are entirely valid. You don't have any authority to make the claim that my POV is a minority POV, nor do you have any data supporting that claim. - H.D.
Not threats, swami, just letting you know how WP works. As to the minority view, that's easy. Yogananda's book came out in 1946 and has been continuously in print since then. YGS's first book appears to have come out in 2001. On Amazon.com, there are multiple editions of Autobiography of a Yogi, and the top selling one is ranked #5,110 on Amazon's list of top sellers. YGS's top seller is Wings of Freedom and is ranked at #439,408. It's an objective fact that Yogananda is more than 85 times more popular than YGS. So logically YGS should get about 1/85th (1.2%) of the space in this article. We're being generous. —Adityanath 19:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Another indicator of how minority a view it is: there are a total of 52 web pages according to Google containing the term "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" compared with 16,200 pages containing the phrase "Mahavatar Babaji." WP does take these sorts of things into account if they have to arbitrate a dispute. This result says that only 0.3% of all pages on Mahavatar Babaji mention Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. That's flat earth territory. —Adityanath 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

By adding large volumes of content to this page for the sole purpose of promoting your book and teacher, you're using Wiki as a promotional site. More than half of this page is your promotional material, even though your guru lineage is just one of several that can be legitimately included here. While appropriate to mention the different Babaji teachers in context, your continued spamming of this page goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Please edit your book promotion excerpt down to appropriate size (I'll do it for you if you don't), and show equal respect for all of the different Babaji teachers and promoters. And please read other suggestions below, including the creation of your own Siddhanath or Wings of Freedom page that could be lined to from here.

Priyanath 16:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

Note that user Hamsacharya Dan tried to block others from editing this page by adding his own tags. It was rectified by Wiki personnel, with the following comment:

":This page isn't protected. Once again, someone has placed a protect tag on an article who doesn't have the ability to actually protect it. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)"

Priyanath 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

Explanation of recent back and forth edits:

There are many opposing claims about Babaji. Yogananda's is considered, almost universally, to be the most authoritative version, since he introduced Babaji to the world in his Autobiography. Every spiritual teacher with claims to Babaji since then has done so in response, and context, to Yogananda and his Autobiography of a Yogi. The Mahavatar Babaji page here should reflect that consensus of the Kriya world.

Because of so many opposing claims about Babaji, it's important to take a Neutral Point of View (POV), and include both sides of the opposing claims. Thus the heading 'Claims About Mahavatar Babaji Since the Publication of Autobiography of a Yogi'.

Three of the four groups with claims here contradict each other, and/or Yogananda. Govindan claims a birthdate for Babaji. Guru Siddhanath claims that Babaji has existed from the beginning of creation. Yogananda, said "No limiting facts about Babaji’s family or birthplace, dear to the annalist’s heart, have ever been discovered." The Haidhakan camp claims that their young Guru who died at a young age was the immortal Babaji, whereas Babaji promised in the Autobiography of a Yogi that he would never leave the body.

The Guru Siddhanath group also claims that 'Babaji is ever the same. He was never born and therefore can never die", yet in the Autobiography of a Yogi Babaji was ready to shed his body, and said he was just about to do so, apparently contradicting the Siddhanath 'Babaji'.

Instead of spam-flooding this page with lengthy claims about Babaji from Guru Siddanath, it would be far more appropriate to create a separate page with lengthy excerpts from his book, and link to it from this Babaji page.

Priyanath 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

We should concentrate on writing about the Baba. Priyanath is right. --Bhadani 16:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


Gurunath Siddhanath is a fake. He is an impatient wordly man claiming to be a master. His "empowerments" are nothing more than cattle calls as he herds one person then the next onstage to pretend to pass energy through them to speed their soul's evolution. If he were indeed a true master he would possess compassion and endless patience, instead he shows a marked impatience and haste during his "empowerments". He forgets sits on stage with a frown as he calls out in his terse way, "next, "next" often forgetting to do part of the empowerment such as not blowing in the ear of many of the people who come up for empowerment. This speaks much louder than any words he might say about his being a true master. True masters don't need words they simply are. He is not. He is all to ready to promote his photos, his incense, books and other trinkets and to take the $108.00 per person he charges for these fake empowerments but he has no real compassion or love to give and this is the mark of a fake.

Regarding additions from Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's literature

Hello Mr. Priyanath,

Thank you for opening up for discussion. Yes I agree, as I have said on Kriya Yoga talk page, that Yogananda's book is the landmark text, and presumably the first english written text about Babaji. I also agree that most English writing since its publication are, in effect, in response to the writings by Yogananda or in response to claims by others. Also, it is true, it is impossible to tell what is factual and what is false. I have included the text from Yogiraj's book because nobody has written at such length and with such veracity, with historical references that have context as well as archeological correlates (which I go into more below), about the nature and essence of Mahavatar Babaji. Not even Yogananda wrote as lucidy about Babaji as Gurunath.

Also, regarding Babaji shedding bodies vs. being ever the same - you must understand what that means: If you'd taken the time to read Gurunath's text, you would see that Babaji has taken many forms over the past several thousand years - Gorakshanath, Kal Agni Nath, Shiva Nagaraj (although not the Babaji Nagaraj of Govindan). This does not mean that he is not ever the same - if you read the section in Yogananda's book about Anandamoyi Ma, you will see that she has also said that she is ever the same, and yet has taken birth, has been a small child, and grown into an adult woman, and then has passed on. Hence, "being ever the same" refers to something deeper than physical garments that one takes on from time to time.

Evidences: Note the numerous ancient temples throughout India that worship Adinath and Gorakshanath - they are abundant. There are no temples to worship a South Indian saint named Babaji Nagraj, nor this history about him. Further note all the texts that Gorakshanath is credited for - including Hatha Yoga, Goraksha Shatak, and many many more. In India, this knowledge is much more well known - and it is widely accepted. Please do your homework before erasing something that you don't understand. I repeat, Yogananda, though a very worthy source or information, is not the only source, nor is it the only accepted source. In India, there are many ancient texts that are used by Kriya yogis.

I am not here to promote Yogiraj Gurunath, I'm here to present his contribution to the yogic treasury of knowledge - which is a unmitigatingly substantial contribution. At first I connected his name to his website, because that's what other organizations had done, and I was not aware of the wikipedia syntax, but have since removed such links and have created a Yogiraj page, DESPITE THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS STILL HAVING LINKS TO THEIR OWN WEBSITES, WHICH I HAVE NOT ALTERED. If you had actually looked at my postings, you would have seen that - it was done several days ago.

Finally, I should contest the claim that I have made the post lengthy in order to promote Yogiraj. If you notice, Yogiraj's name was only mentioned once, in order to reference the source of the ensuing text. The lengthiness of the post is necessary in order to elucidate in full the origins and nature of Babaji. If you did a thorough analysis of the scriptures, you would see that they are fully in concert with Yogiraj's information. As I've said, nobody has ever painted such a complete picture of Babaji - even Yogananda admitted that he knew little. Yogiraj's claims are fully in concordance with whatever Yogananda has written, and they further elucidate Babaji. Yogiraj spent his early life in the Himalayas amongst the lofty beings that are called the Hamsas and that Naths. You must understand that these are not castes - Hamsa is the Hongsa of Yogananda - it is the name for the lofty souls. A Nath is the same - it means Lord of Irradiant Splendor. The Naths and the Hamsas are one and the same - Yogananda was a lofty Param Hamsa, Sri Yukteswar was born Priya Nath Karar. Adi Nath means First Yogi, First Lord. Today there are yogis who call themselves nath yogis of such or such caste, but the 9 NavNaths are ancient, as are the 84 MahaSiddhas - and are written about in numerous ancient texts. Please understand that there is much much more to the picture than Yogananda put to paper at the time, and that the excerpt from Wings to Freedom does not promote Gurunath more than to credit him for his writing. In actuality, the excerpt serves to elaborate the treasury of knowledge on Wikipedia about this Being. Hamsacharya dan 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I agree that Siddhanath adds to the Babaji lore. As far as its veracity, that's an open question. Obviously some people have a question about the fact that it is one person's word (Siddhanath), and are deleting your overly lengthy posts completely (please note that I reinserted your shorter post and link after someone else deleted it). Just as some people doubt Govindan's versions of the Babaji story. Both Siddhanath's and Govindan's deserve mention, but I personally have my doubts in both cases. But my POV is not important, which is why I resinserted yours, and other's, links that were deleted.

But to make 70% of the Babaji page a long excerpt of lofty language from that book is still entirely inappropriate. The appropriate thing to do is have a short mention, just like all the other groups do. And then have a link to a lengthy Siddhanath or Wings of Freedom page, just like all the other groups do!

Using the approach that you've taken, one could far, far more reasonably put the entire chapter from Autobiography of a Yogi on the Babaji page, along with the other chapter from Autobiography of a Yogi on Babaji, because of the information it contains and it's unquestioned veracity. But instead, a short excerpt and link to the book is the most appropriate thing to do.

As far as all the incarnations of Babaji claimed by Siddhanath - 'babaji' is a common name in India, present and past. I believe that Yogananda knew the 'babaji' lore in India, and would have made mention of that. I also believe that Yogananda had the divine awareness to see these things, and to see the truth. Regardless, that's my opinion only, and doesn't color the fact that lengthy posts of one POV are inappropriate for the Babaji page. A mention and a link to a separate page are right, just as with the other Babaji claimants.

FYI, external links are fine to have in the external links section.

Priyanath 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

response

Sir,

Notice that the other Babajis go by the name BABAJI!! None of the past roles of the Mahavatar went by the name Babaji except those noted. Siddhanath is quite aware of who are the individuals that go by the name Babaji and the true esoteric history of the Mahavatar, which has partially be recorded in past texts. Please note that Gurunath has devoted his book, as well as numerous chapters to the truth about the Mahavatar. What has been included here, even the long selection, is but a small section of his writings. Siddhanath's selection certainly deserves to be placed above the "claims," which are sporadic, idiosyncratic, and lack historical correlates. Please do not place it below, as that is an insult to the monumental work that Yogiraj has done in clarifying and elaborating on the Mahavatar's role. I will consent to keep the abridged version of his paraphrase if you do so. Please note that no claims about Babaji are verified, not even those written by Yogananda. Also, Yogananda is not the first Master to write about Babaji. Thus it is out of my deep respect and reverence for Yogananda that I have not moved his excerpt from the introductory segment. In fact I've added to it by inserting Sri Yukteswar's quote, in case you didn't notice.Hamsacharya dan 04:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Siddhanath's selection certainly deserves to be placed above the "claims,""

I disagree. His claims, even though they have historical references, are no more idiosyncratic than the others.

"I will consent to keep the abridged version of his paraphrase if you do so. "

I offer a compromise. Keep the abridged version (which is still longer than the excerpt from Autobiography of a Yogi!, talk about being disrespectful), but put it under Other Claims, where it belongs. In fact, it is a claim that has only come to light since the publication of Autobiography of a Yogi, and it belongs under that heading.

Priyanath 04:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath


"Avoid Weasel Words", Wikipedia style

This following comment was removed from page:

"Many people believe Mahavatar Babaji to have been a figurative or fictional character created by Yogananda as a teaching aid."

based on Wikipedia Guidelines for Citing Sources: "The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your opinions or for original research."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Priyanath 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

Discussion moved here from Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Moved discussion

Hey guys, take it easy please. I was asked to look in on all of this, and have done. I think we can have some peace and articles that satisfy everyone if we work calmly and are all willing to compromise a little. First off, the policies of WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks are non-negotiable. Nothing can be done if people, all people, don't stop calling each other names over this, names which include "vandal" and "fraud" that also go against our assume good faith policy, a policy without which we cannot go forward. It isn't our place to determine the spiritual validity of any teacher or group. If they are notable then we may have an article about them. Unfounded claims, simple advertising or unsourced criticisms will impede progress towards a happy result. I'd suggest listing proposed text for the articles each group wants to make on the talk pages in calm language that ignores the presence of the other side so that we may proceed dispassionately and impersonally. Then we can discuss each point until we have an agreement for inclusion. I have some experience with Chinese disciplines and their politics, but don't have much of an opinion on Indian traditions, so perhaps I may be able to find language that will work for all parties. Regards, --Fire Star 19:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fire Star. I apologize for getting emotionally involved in this - it was a mistake. I was as calm as possible until after too many personal attacks as well as slandering remarks about the subject of my edits from this person NoToFrauds, I finally snapped. I will be grateful to work with you and the other editors to come to a mutual conclusion. Please note that this person NoToFrauds has already made another huge revision to the Kriya Yoga page. I have refrained from editing, and I will refrain from making any edits to these pages in the future until we have come to a concensus. Please tell me what your plan of action is once the editors have chimed in with their proposals - will the page be protected or will it again be vulnerable to vandalism? Thanks. Hamsacharya dan 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Dan Kogan, ...personal attack removed..., I never made any "huge revision" with the Kriya yoga article. I simply reverted it back to the 03 January version made by Priyanath that everyone except you agree with. You must realize that you are the only person who wants to alter the Kriya yoga and Mahavatar Babaji articles for the purpose of inserting the name, writings and website of the leader of your cult, which is an extremely small almost invisible organization with a lineage and method that is not recognized by the majority. The articles are already perfect and complete as they are without your...personal attack removed... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NoToFrauds (talk • contribs).
The policies of WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks are non-negotiable. --Fire Star 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to avoid protecting pages as long as possible. If things go well, this could be as easy as having a well-formatted section in the applicable articles for your position and separate sections for other positions. At the Taijiquan pages we go in order of seniority, if that is disputed, we could even list sections in order of Google hits! We could list the points for discussion as follows:
  1. Teacher X taught Y at school Z from year A to year B. Comments?
  2. Teacher C taught something he also called Y at school D from year E to year F. Comments?
Etc. Then we can discuss verifiable dates and times of relevant activities, or even claims of activities, as long as we (the editors) aren't the ones making the claims. Everyone can have their say, and we can say things drily in a way that won't insult other schools. I hope this is helpful. --Fire Star 21:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Firestar, in the Kriya Yoga community, which is parallel to the Mahavatar Babaji community, you'll find that Hamsacharya Dan's and YGS's ideas are extreme minority - their opinion only. I posted some comments at Talk:Mahavatar_Babaji about how I think this should be resolved on the Mahavatar Babaji page (and by extension the Kriya Yoga page). I personally feel that YGS is hijacking the popularity of Mahavatar Babaji and Kriya Yoga - but that his view, as extreme minority as it is - deserves a minor, but respectful, mention. The appropriate place to expand on these ideas is, of course, a YGS page created by Dan. I also feel that Dan was the vandal on the Babaji and Kriya Yoga pages by giving very extreme Undue Weight to a very tiny minority POV. Respectfully,
Priyanath 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
my comments, referred to above, that I posted on the Talk:Mahavatar_Babaji:
I don't think there's any need to be disrepectful to Hamsacharya Dan or YGS. For that reason, I think that the name that YGS chooses to use for himself should be there, rather than his birth name. And I would delete 'solely his own', just for example, because some of his disciples seem to think the same way that he does. Their view, though it is in the extreme minority, should be represented as such, but respectfully. I'm taking a time out from posting, editing, and reverting for a few days, because I think there should be some discussion about all of this, and the current version is a good starting point, because it does reflect a majority POV.
Priyanath 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC):Priyanath
Thanks for your input. What you say certainly sounds reasonable enough. Looking at Hamsacharya dan's latest and initial comments, it seems that working together is possible. From now on, I'd say it will be better to continue this discussion at Talk:Mahavatar_Babaji if everyone is amenable. --Fire Star 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm adding my earlier comment from the top of this page to this discussion here, because it's more specific about what I believe is the appropriate presentation of YGS and his view for the Mahavatar Babaji page:
Comment from Priyanath: I think a short mention, at the end of the Post-Yogananda Claims section, is appropriate. Similar to what is currently there (the 12:38, 11 March 2006 edit): two sentences at the end of the Post-Yogananda section. This is entirely keeping with how much weight a relatively tiny minority POV should be given. Any more is Undue Weight. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOVUW#Undue_weight --Priyanath 06:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

Greetings Priyanath and everyone. I've moved the discussion I'd gotten involved in here because the Babaji article seems to be a primary centre of attention for these issues. I didn't mean to slight earlier comments that are germane. As with subjects I am familiar with, popularity breeds diversity. I see what I believe to be good advice relating to Wikipedia policy for treating these issues mentioned. That is encouraging. Regards, --Fire Star 06:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fire Star, for trying to help make sense of this from a truly neutral POV. --Priyanath 06:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
Hi, I have just read a little bit about this - I came to the talk page because I couldn't figure out Sidhoji person was and have been practicing Kriya Yoga for 35 years, so I've seen it all. It makes sense that it is Yogiraj Gurunath - I saw him in Los Angeles last year, and he is very wonderful. I would love to see a page about him. In my opinion, there should be more about his ideas about Babaji. James in LA. 71.116.184.140 07:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi "James in LA"! Are you sure you've been practicing Kriya Yoga for 35 years? If that is true then why would you still attend a lecture by someone like Sidhoji Raj Shitole of all people? You've been practicing Kriya Yoga for 35 years and still you're not aware who is legit and who is not? Also, isn't Dan Kogan also from LA? Please don't tell me you're another "sock puppet" that Dan Kogan created, a virtual tag team partner since everyone else seems to think his cult leader is a nuisance. And what made you conclude that the personality of sidhoji Raj Shitole is being discussed in the Talk Page? Come on, Dan, who are you kidding? It is just so obvious! You already have a history of engaging in this sort of juvenile prank! And, by the way, the IP that you used traces back to Virginia, not California.
No To Frauds 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Section in question

"Another teacher, Mr. Sidhoji Rao Shitole, has described his alleged encounters with and transformation by a being he names Shiv-Goraksha Babaji, whom he identifies with both Gorakshanath and Mahavatar Babaji. This opinion, however, is solely his own and is not shared by other Naths or by kriyabans from the lineage of Lahiri Mahasaya."

In the above section, I have italicized two phrases which seem inelegant to me. The word alleged in the first instance is redundant, as we already attribute the claim of the encounter to the teacher in question. The second can be more drily stated as This identification is not acknowledged by other known Naths or by kriyabans from the lineage of Lahiri Mahasaya. Also, if our article on the teacher is titled Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, why the other name? The usual criterion in this sort of instance is which version of the name gets more Google hits. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, 832 hits; Sidhoji Rao Shitole, 1 hit, apparently referring to someone else from the 18th century. Do these proposals sound reasonable? --Fire Star 07:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Firestar, below is my preferred edit for the Mahavatar Babaji page. I was initiated 2.5 years ago by both Shibendu Lahiri (great grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya - direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji), as well as Yogiraj Gurunath (within a couple weeks of each other) into Kriya Yoga, and can personally attest that the techniques are the same. I have also meditated at Gethia in the Himalayas with Maharishi Gorakhnath Babaji who is not Gorakshanath of the middle ages but a modern Nath yogi, and they call the very same Kriya Yoga technique by the name Shiva Shakti. Yogiraj Gurunath calls the main technique of Kriya Yoga "Shiva Shakti Kriya Yoga". This connects Gurunath with both the Naths as well as the Kriya Yogis. Thus Yogiraj's information should be represented on all the associated pages - Nath Sampradaya (for which his webpage is 1st to come up on a Google search). Also Gurunath's webpage comes up in the top 1 or 2 pages of Google for "Mahavatar Babaji" and "Kriya Yoga". "Yogiraj Gurunath" gets 1080 hits on Google while "Shibendu Lahiri" gets 724. Gurunath's POV is not extreme minority, but has a large and growing representation worldwide in the Nath and Kriya Yoga communities.

The following proposed edit gives succinctly: 1. information on the source individual, 2. the source text, 3. a brief text about the individual's proposed qualifications on the subject, and 4. the individual's specific POV, which the 'fair use' quote elucidates. 5. The external link gives interested readers a source for further information.:

In his autobiography, Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis', Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, a modern Himalayan Nath Guru, has claimed to have had personal experiences of Mahavatar Babaji. He believes that Mahavatar Babaji, Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, Gorakshanath, and Adinath are one and the same being - a pure manifestation of God, whom he calls "Nameless One" and "Eternal Now". On his experiences of this Being (reprinted from Wings to Freedom), he writes:
It seemed like a vast expansion of inner space, in a different dimension. To me it was like a limitless nothingness, so blinding and bright that it appeared dark, like a massive benevolent black hole, the likes of Mahankala Shiva....This light is always there when a person is totally dissolved into the "Eternal Now", called God. [This Being] is not even an Avatar, not even a Divine Being. He is beyond that, a total Is-ness of the zero-naught-zero Being, Non-being (the formless one), and more. The more I talk about Him, the more of a mess I get into, as the King is beyond all words.

I would also like an external link like this:

Hamsacharya dan 11:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have also been iniatiated into Kriya Yoga by Self-Realization Fellowship, the organization founded by Paramahansa Yogananda, in 1983 and just recently by Shibendu Lahiri (great grandson of Lahiri Mahasaya who was a direct disciple of Babaji). I would just like to assure everyone here that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is not recognized by either Self-Realization Fellowship, the biggest Kriya Yoga organization in the world that traces its lineage back to Mahavatar Babaji, and those who belong to the Dynastic Lineage of Shibendu Lahiri. It is somewhat questionable, at least to me, that someone who has been intiated in as valid and official a lineage as Shibendu's would still consider re-initiation from someone like Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. I'm sorry, but Hamsacharya's statement does not ring true to me. The party in question is known for making big claims that they cannot substantiate. They seem to be into using every trick in the book, so to speak.

It is not meet to compare the popularity of Shibendu Lahiri with that of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath because Shibendu Lahiri is just a quiet householder and a solitary practitioner, he has no organization and is completely against them, nor does he claim to be a direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji like Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. To be able to establish who is the majority Hamsa Yoga Sangh (1,170 hits in Google) should be compared to another organization like unto it, for example Self-Realization Fellowship (167,000 hits), or Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (1,080 hits) versus Lahiri Mahasaya (26,000 hits) since both of them claim direct discipleship with Mahavatar Babaji.

This article, from my personal standpoint, is already complete even without the mention of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and his opinions. Nevertheless, since it is already there, I would agree with the inclusion of the name in which he is publicly known with his legal name as a parenthetical remark for a clearer presentation. From what I've read, there are certain editors who are questioning his very use of the name Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath since they are supposedly titles that needs to be conferred by someone else in authority. Ethically, those who uphold that argument should first be satisfied before the name Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is actually included in the article.

Troy 16:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Firestar, I agree with your edit suggestions, and still believe that Hamsacharya Dan's are giving Undue Weight to a minority view. I agree that the phrases that you italicize are unneccesary, especially considering that the introduction to 'Post-Yogananda claims...' covers this territory ('several teachers have claimed' and 'Some of these stories conflict'). And I agree that YGS's chosen name should be the name that appears (and also agree with Troy about including his birth name). I believe those two sentences currently on the page are entirely sufficient, considering that only YGS holds these views of Mahavatar Babaji, and that Kriya Yogis from other traditions do not. There could be a mention of the book, as in 'YGS describes his encounters... in the book WingsTF...' The book excerpt adds nothing about Babaji (or YGS's claims about Babaji), it is so vague. An external link in the External Links section is also appropriate, for those who want to go down that road, but again needs some qualification. 'More about Mahavatar Babaji' should be qualified. In that case then, there should also be external links to all books mentioned here: Autobiography of a Yogi, Hariakhan Baba, Conversations with Yogananda, etc.
All of the YGS views can be appropriately placed on the YGS page, which people can go to by clicking on the wiki link, if they want to learn more about the YGS version of Babaji.
Regarding Google searches, this confirms that YGS's is an extreme minority view. 'lahiri mahavatar babaji' gives 859 results. 'yogananda mahavatar babaji' gives 10,500. 'siddhanath mahavatar babaji' gives 250. 'govindan mahavatar babaji' gives 351. 'nath mahavatar babaji' gives 187, showing that it is clearly a small minority view even in the Nath community. Thank you again. --Priyanath 16:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
A minor note - I'm adding it here rather than going through the normal hoops, since I don't want to do even an indirect 'edit': It's not clear that the painting of Babaji is in the Public Domain. The sketch is, since it's from a Public Domain book. --Priyanath 19:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

I think the info yellow-highlighted in the following passage is the essential bit (while certianly not exhaustive), the rest can be in the main YGS article, which is linked in the passage. The italicized bit is where we have to discuss how to balance the section. Also, the external link description can be shorter:

In his autobiography, Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, a modern Himalayan Nath Guru, has claimed to have had personal experiences of Mahavatar Babaji. He teaches that Mahavatar Babaji, Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, Gorakshanath, and Adinath are the same being - a pure manifestation of God, whom he calls "Nameless One" and "Eternal Now". On his experiences of this Being (reprinted from Wings to Freedom), he writes:

It seemed like a vast expansion of inner space, in a different dimension. To me it was like a limitless nothingness, so blinding and bright that it appeared dark, like a massive benevolent black hole, the likes of Mahankala Shiva....This light is always there when a person is totally dissolved into the "Eternal Now", called God. [This Being] is not even an Avatar, not even a Divine Being. He is beyond that, a total Is-ness of the zero-naught-zero Being, Non-being (the formless one), and more. The more I talk about Him, the more of a mess I get into, as the King is beyond all words.

External link:

My reasoning is, the less we have in this article, the less we go into much description of YGS or his credentials, then there will be less room for comment from those who would call them into question. A balancing act. If there is a disputation of YGS or his credentials that it is felt necessary to mention, it should be published somewhere, and if we are to mention it, we should link to the critical article or information. Comments? --Fire Star 19:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, my two cents: I'm ok with the first two sentences. The italicized portion I could do without, because it makes it seem that YGS represents the Nath point of view. But the excerpt does two things that I think aren't appropriate for this page. It adds undue weight to a POV that is quite likely a smaller minority POV than the claims made in the previous three paragraphs by Govindan, Haidakhan, and Hariakhan. Secondly, it's more about YGS's experience than about Babaji ('It seemed like', 'To me it was like', 'it appeared'). And the non-certainty those words convey don't inspire confidence in YGS's opinions. If YGS's portion of this page gets higher weighting than the others, then it begs the question 'why not allow additional comments by YGS's detractors refuting his claims?', which I would have to support if this book passage is there. The external link without a POV is also correct. Thank you for your efforts. --Priyanath 19:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
Firestar: Sure, but why shouldn't Gurunath get the same opportunity and space as Govindan to present his book and claims? This section is, after all, Post-Yogananda CLAIMS! People know when they're reading this section what the topic is. So, why should different POVs get different representation? Why are these other editors so against letting someone have his POV in the section which is specifically for that purpose - if they have doubts about his credentials or claims, then shouldn't they present some clear evidence? It's not like this person is fictitious or off the street - he has written and had published by an independent publishing company an entire book on the subject of Babaji, the name Babaji is even in the title of the book! His family lineage and history are verified by this website where you can find many references to "Shitole" in Gwalior as part of the Scidia Dynasty of Maharajas (royalty). All of Gurunath's youth, history and lineage are written in the book, including pictures from the age of 3 onwards, so nothing about his life is secret or unknown as some editors are suggesting. All of the claims in this section are equally controversial, and they all should receive equal weight. And for the record - Gurunath has NEVER claimed to be a direct disciple of Babaji as TroyVaughn suggests. His spiritual lineage is presented in the book as well. Hamsacharya dan 20:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Govindan's book is entitled "Babaji and the 18 Siddha Kriya Yoga Tradition," Shitole's book is entitled "Wings to Freedom." Govindan's book is a collection of other people's accounts and personal encounters with Babaji, Shitole's book is his autobiography. Govindan is a non-partisan scholar who, before writing "Babaji and the 18 Siddha Kriya Yoga Tradition," wrote a book in computer systems control and auditing (unlike Shitole he actually has a professional career outside his cult and is highly educated). Govindan's writings has been used as reference by other equally reputable scholars like Dr. Georg Feuerstein in his Encyclopedia of Yoga. Shitole is not recognized by anybody else except his own cronies. Govindan's book is a bestseller while Shitole's book is a veritable unknown; the 5-star review rating in Amazon.com was only given by people who are clearly his followers (since most of them have "swan" names) as a part of the entire cult propaganda (like what you are doing here) which, in my opinion, is so cheap and so sad. Marshall Govindan gets 40,200 Google hits while Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath gets a meager 1,080 hits.
No To Frauds 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, all of the opinions in the claims section are minority opinions except Yogananda who passed on in 1952 and has had 50 years for his writings to gain a mass following. The other claims have not, except for Hariakhan - who has had almost 100 years, DESPITE gaining any mass following. Govindan's book has been out on the market much longer than Gurunath's, so has had time to gain readership, as had leonard orr's writings. If someone has dedicated an entire book to present his experiences on Babaji, then that should be taken into consideration here - almost nobody in the world except for those listed in the claims section have gone through the trouble to do that. His book is dedicated to Babaji. He has written poetry about Babaji. Besides that, Gurunath in his speaking engagements is quite often mentioning Babaji. There is no excessive or flashy language in my proposed edit. The quote is the essential part that gives detail for which this whole entry into Wikipedia was meant for - discussing Babaji. Hamsacharya dan 20:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
In response to PriyaNath: Thanks for agreement about the first 2 sentences. You make an interesting argument about the use of allegedly 'un-Confident' wording in the quote. It has often been the case in history that spiritual experiences are difficult to relay in words, and thus cause fumbling of the use of words. I propose a compromise with an even smaller quote to replace the first quote:
"Yogiraj describing his first experience with Babaji (from Wings to Freedom): Later, as this soul returned after the experience of both his form and formless self, I felt, "Oh Lord! The universe a bubble in my consciousness, my consciousness a nothing in thy Nothingness!" Hamsacharya dan 21:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This quote is immaterial and irrelevant, Dan. It does not add anything to the already existing information about Mahavatar Babaji in the article.
No To Frauds 22:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
HD, Since the quote is indeed the description of a spiritual experience of YGS, then the appropriate place for it is the YGS page, not here. I'm all for YGS spiritual experience quotes on the YGS page - I think people would enjoy those excerpts. But that's where they should be, not here. Someone above, unsigned, said that YGS should get the same 'opportunity and space as Govindan'. I agree exactly! Govindan has two sentences, including a mention of his book, and no excerpts from his book. Since YGS's movement is arguably a smaller minority than Govindan, why this incessant push to have more than Govindan? Let the user choose to get more by going to the external links, or a link to the YGS page. --Priyanath 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

Greetings all. Firstly, I'd like to congratulate everyone on the vastly improved level of civility. Actually, it was HD who said "why shouldn't Gurunath get the same opportunity and space as Govindan?" A couple of equally sized listings appropriately linked is my recommendation. If one gets a quote at their listing, the other should. Listing them in alphabetical order reduces arguments over precedence. As I've mentioned before the balancing act is; the drier the listing, the less controversy and rebuttal it engenders. Personally, I don't agree with a lot of the teachers or groups listed at the pages I contribute to regularly, many of whom are incompetent IMO, some even to the point of being dangerous to their students, but I feel that information presented neutrally and simply is the way forward. I've even started neutral articles on some of them myself, for the sake of completeness. Cheers! --Fire Star 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fire Star. I'm not familiar with how this works - will you write/propose something for this page? I think most or all of us are comfortable with you doing so. You can see more discussion between HD and myself on my User_talk:Priyanath page. Priyanath 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree.. Hate to throw the work on you FireStar, but if anybody else (with a POV) does it, there could be more controversy. It should be easy, though. -- H.D.


OK, this is what I'll put in to start with. I may reword it a little later, but it will be better than what is there now, at any rate:

In his autobiography, Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath also claims to have had personal experiences of Mahavatar Babaji. He teaches that Mahavatar Babaji, Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, Gorakshanath, and Adinath are the same being.

--Fire Star 03:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Fire Star, Again, thank you for your efforts. I think this is a very good compromise, and I'm all for it. A series of entirely neutral External Links is the next step, and it may be you don't have to do that. I suggest links to all of the mentioned teachers and sources, in neutral language such as 'More on Wings to Freedom...', 'More on Marshall Govindan...', etc. Priyanath 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In this case, since there are several editors now agreeing on the latest revision of the compromise version by Baba Louis, WP:3RR will effectively forestall any prolonged revert war. I would ask everyone to remember that Babaji asked Yukteswar to honour the God inside the insincere saints at the Kumbha Mela as well (I've been doing some homework!). --Fire Star 22:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice analogy, Fire Star. So the insincere saint Sidhoji Rao Shitole also deserves to be honored because God also resides in him? I'll give that some thought. Dan Kogan seems to like your analogy very much though. As long as his cult leader gets a space on the article he is willing to devour anything. --No To Frauds 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying that anyone is insincere, that isn't the issue. I am wondering why you have such an objection to this guy, though. --Fire Star 23:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
FireStar, you're so awesome! Thanks for taking an interest in our little world here and our little silly ego battles. It's been a pleasure working with you to straighten things out. I agree with Priyanath that there's still some clean up to be done, and we'd be very grateful to have you stay on this little project for a bit longer until the dust settles. Thanks again. Hamsacharya dan 23:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You're so awesome! It's been a pleasure working with you! Thanks again! Yada yada... What a major personal attack removed. But it seems to be working. Finally you've found a personal attack removed sysop you can manipulate with praises! Congratulations! --No To Frauds 23:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I started the discussions that I was asked (by you) to undertake on the YGS copyvio talk page. Then I moved the relevant talk to the Babaji talk page. The poll being conducted at the top of the Babaji talk page was before I got there. I found a mention of the disputed teacher on the article page that questioned his legitimacy even though it wasn't sourced. That seemed to go against no original research, so I asked about it. I found several editors in the dispute engaged in acrimonious insults. That died down, I asked for proposals, then added a proposal of my own. Priyanath, HD and I discussed HD's proposal (in which discussion you directed some comments to HD, but not to anyone else) and whittled it down to two sentences that Priyanath and HD said they could live with. I proposed the new 2 sentence version on the talk page and asked for comments. After getting 2 generally positive replies, I inserted the new version, and you reverted it saying it hadn't been discussed. I reverted back. Baba Louis then moved the two sentences to their current position. We have a working consensus now involving at least 4 editors for the two sentence compromise version and 1 against. If you would like more information on the guidelines that I have been using, please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Regards --Fire Star 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I see that there have been several personal attacks made by more than one editor on this talk page. I would ask that all editors refrain from personal attacks. I am not happy about blocking any editor for personal attacks on a talk page like this as it tends to stifle discussion but will if I see any more. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody may be making personal attacks here at this time, but Baba Louis and Chai Walla haven't refrained from doing so on talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath or talk:Nath. I will make every effort to have these individuals answer for this type of behavior - it is directly interfering with my work and wasting my time. They are going against wikipedia policy by possible sockpuppeting, by writing unverifiable claims into articles, by erasing or vandalizing verifiable claims, and by continuing to make personal attacks. Hamsacharya dan 07:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is very unfortunate that the wikipedia can't be a more relaxed and co-operative project (esp. on pages about yogi's). We have nothing to gain here from competition or conflict.

I think it is the artificial social environment we find ourselves in here that is the root of most wiki-conflicts. People misunderstand each other socially, as well as on the facts and opinions. Sam Spade 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam - I hear that Fire Star passed the torch on to you. We're in the process of repairing relationships on here. You can see my talk page for more about that. Now that NoToFrauds seems to be gone (for now, anyway), it should be easier to get along. I'll certainly try.
I'd like to start discussion, by stating that the YGS section has problems. I'm going to put it back to the FireStar edit, because that was the last agreed-upon edit. From there, I am open to calm discussion about objections and directions with this article, including the YGS section. Hopefully Sam will stay on to mediate. Hamsacharya dan 01:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing I can guarantee is that I have no pre-formed opinion about this guy. I have never heard of him before, and as a lover of God, I know there are both frauds as well as truly holy men, both apocryphal myths and historical legends. IMO all of these guys, frauds and guru's alike deserve neutral articles. Our goal should be to write an article that not only helps a newcomer (such as myself) to form his own opinion, but one that any reasonable and informed person can live with, be they critic of, or believer in, this man. Sam Spade 11:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Roy Eugene Davis

Roy Eugene Davis, a direct personal disciple of Paramahansa Yogananda and former minister of the Self-Realization Fellowship Phoenix Temple, expressed a similar conclusion in his book Life Surrendered in God: The Philosophy and Practices of Kriya Yoga.

Is there any special reason why R.E.D. is no longer mentioned in the article? Sam Spade 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe it was lost simply because of the revert war. As far as I know, there would be no objections from anyone if it were to be put back in. —Adityanath 15:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote

In his autobiography, Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath has written that in his estimation, Mahavatar Babaji, Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, Gorakshanath, and Adinath are one and the same being - a pure manifestation of God, whom he calls "Nameless One" and "Eternal Now". Of his experiences of this Being (reprinted from Wings to Freedom):

It seemed like a vast expansion of inner space, in a different dimension. To me it was like a limitless nothingness, so blinding and bright that it appeared dark, like a massive benevolent black hole, the likes of Mahankala Shiva....This light is always there when a person is totally dissolved into the "Eternal Now", called God. he is not even an Avatar, not even a Divine Being. He is beyond that, a total Is-ness of the zero naught zero Being, Non-being (the formless one), and more. The more I talk about Him, the more of a mess I get into, as the King is beyond all words.
Why was the above removed? Any reason why it cannot be restored? Sam Spade 10:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The above quote was removed because the majority of the editors did not believe it belonged in the article. See vote section near top of page. None of the other post-Yogananda claims have quotes, and the views expressed by this teacher are an even smaller minority view than the preceding teachers in the section. It was thought that any quotes belonged in Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and/or Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. The editor attempting to put the quote in has agreed with this. I think this article has come to a consensus and it is other articles that may be more in need of mediation assistance. —Adityanath 15:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the longer YGS section was agreed to over-represent what is a tiny minority POV, compared to the 'other' claims made here. Even then, the longer version you show was whittled down from a much longer edit that Hamsacharya Dan kept trying to force back here, again and again. All the editors agreed strongly to the two-sentence version, except Hamsacharya Dan, who I recall accepted the shorter two sentence compromise (which is the same length as the much more popular POV's of the preceding 'others'), and one or two others who thought any mention of YGS should be deleted entirely.Priyanath 16:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I was new here, and the instructions said to be bold! Anyway, at first it was just me and Priyanath when I was putting in longer quotes. Then after about a week, other editors chimed in and mediation came about. Anyway, I've learned from this...moving forward... I don't know why the section about "a pure manifestation of God..."Eternal Now"." was removed - I think that it should be put back in, because it completes the thought. Other than that, we've created a separate article on Shiv-Goraksha Babaji that can be ref'd for more information. I personally have qualms with some of these claims, and there are certainly qualms in the community, but there is no sense in polluting this article with conflicting views - as a compromise, I think that each of these claims should be about the same length, as Priyanath said (which hasn't been accomplished yet). Hamsacharya dan 16:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I think that external links to all the teachers mentioned would be helpful to everyone. 'More on YGS...', 'More on Marshall Govindan....' for example. The blurbs on the different groups and teachers with connections to Babaji are quite appropriate, as I've said before, even when they don't meet people's approval. I don't buy all of them, but then it's not my article, or anyone's, and that's why these should be included - but a short mention of each, and an External Link are quite appropriate. I'll take a shot at external links in a couple of days, if nobody else does. HD, I have a feeling that you didn't need WP's encouragement to be bold!, and I say that good-naturedly....
Sam Spade, we've discussed much of this previously, with Fire Star. I'll repeat my opinion that the most recent quote from YGS's book was more about YGS and a spritual experience he had, than information about Babaji. Priyanath 00:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

I've added links under two headings. 'See also', which are Wiki links with relevant chapters from Autobiography of a Yogi about Mahavatar Babaji. And 'External Links', with links to websites of Govindan, YGS, and the one Sam Spade added. (note to sam: that link you added seems not very relevant, or in the main mix of different Babaji schools of thought - just my opinion). I've made the links as neutral as possible. I'm sure there are others that are appropriate, or maybe the link language needs work. Let's discuss it, or make your edit and discuss.Priyanath 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Priyanath. I've converted the links to Wikisource to use InterWiki links instead of external links. For future reference, you can use [[Wikisource:Name of article]] to link to Wikisource. Similarly wikilinks can be used for other MediaWiki projects such as Wiktionary. —Adityanath 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Adityanath, thank you.Priyanath 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

the groundwork is well established...

Priyanath - you seem like a nice guy, but you can't claim POV when the research is right there. That's like saying that the earth is flat just because everyone else believes it. BY the way, "mahavatar babaji" gets 17,000 on google, while gorakhnath gets 32,000. It's 2:1. I've been a scholar of sanatan dharma for 13 years. I lived in India for 7. There are about 1 billion people that can tell you about Gorakhnath Babaji over here, the "Mahavtar". Many of the books are written in sanskrit, and haven't been translated, but many of them have. The Guru Granth Sahib is foundational literature. Mahavatar Babaji is a title of respect - it's not a patronymic - the name is Shiva Gorakshanath - Nath Rahasaya. Take a look at the shiv-goraksha babaji article. Take a look here [1] "...and many a little girl in the remotest village of India is put to sleep to the refrain of "Chalo Machhinder, Gorakh Aaya...." If you have any questions let me know. Kalagni Nath 00:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Kalagni Nath, You seem like a pretty nice guy, too. But the research isn't there, and doesn't prove that Mahavatar Babaji is the same as Gorakhnath. There's some interesting speculation, but nothing approaching proof. Not even a majority POV. That's why there should be an appropriate mention of it on the Mahavatar Babaji page, as a minority POV, which is what's there now. I think it's sweet that the little girls in India have a song to Gorakhnath as they go to sleep, and that Gorakhnath is so popular and widely known in India, and that he gets twice as many Google hits as Mahavatar Babaji. But that doesn't show any connection between the two. Mahavatar Babaji is the specific name of the Guru of Lahiri Mahasaya, and not merely a title of respect. It's the name that Mahavatar Babaji chose for himself:
He has adopted the simple name of Babaji (revered father); other titles of respect given him by Lahiri Mahasaya’s disciples are Mahamuni Babaji Maharaj (supreme ecstatic saint), Maha Yogi (greatest of yogis), Trambak Baba and Shiva Baba (titles of avatars of Shiva). Does it matter that we know not the patronymic of an earth-released master?
The Shiva names are only titles of respect, contrary to Dan's assertion that they prove that Babaji is Shiva, but that's another subject, and a much longer one. The statement that we know not the patronymic of Mahavatar Babaji says it all. Yogananda, Lahiri Mahasaya, and all of his disciples were not stupid. If Mahavatar Babaji were Gorakhnath, they would have known, and Yogananda would have said so. Instead he said 'we know not the patronymic'. The fact that you claim to know the patronymic for Mahavatar Babaji is possibly worth a minority POV mention on the Mahavatar Babaji page, but that's all, which has been duly noted in the article.
I've read that web article previously, and found nothing there that's verifiable evidence of anything. Alot of speculation about Babaji being all kinds of saints, but that's part of the beautiful sweetness of Indian worship of the saints and masters. I also appreciate that you lived in India for seven years, and have studied sanatan dharma for 13 years. I've also studied and lived in India, but it's not something I like to talk about, because I've seen it used all too often to hint 'therefore I know what I'm talking about.'
You do seem like a nice guy. I hope that the tone here will improve. Dan and Adityanath both seem like sincere followers of their paths, but both have shown some really boorish behavior, likely based on their strong beliefs, For that reason I give them the benefit of the doubt that they are both acting in good will. I would be more inclined, like Baba Louis, to just put an NPOV tag on certain articles, and leave it be. As opposed to getting into revert, edit, flame, get blocked by WP for boorish behavior, and then start all over again. But better yet is to discuss before editing and reverting, which is what I've tried to do with your friend Dan. ॐ Priyanath 03:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. See the vote at the top of this page to see the majority POV on this exact issue. Keep in mind that NotoFrauds and Troy were proven to be one and the same, so their vote should be counted as one vote rather than two. In spite of accusations by Dan, the others have never been shown to be sock-puppets. ॐ Priyanath 04:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There has been long discussion of this subject here, and it is the consensus that other than a brief mention, the minority opinion that Mahavatar Babaji = Goraksha does not belong in this article. I support Priyanath in maintaining the article more or less as is. ---Baba Louis 11:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That was before the recent verifiable references came to light. Nobody has commented on the specific recent evidences such as:

  • 1. Guru Granth Sahib ("bible" of the Sikh religion) - which says that gorakshanath initiated kabir. and Autobiography of a Yogi (foundational modern text of Kriya Yoga) quoting Mahavatar Babaji saying that he initiated Kabir.
    • Completely faulty logic. People can easily be initiated by more than one person. I myself have received several distinct initiations from several distinct people. It's great that Kabir was initiated by both Gorakshanath AND Mavatar Babaji! ---Baba Louis 22:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 2. Romola Butalia's direct linking of both A. Mahavatar Babaji = "Guru Gorakhnath (Shiva-Goraksha Nath)", and B. Gorakhnath initiated Kabir, in her book "In the Presence of the Masters", published by Motilal Barnarsidass "The Leading Indian Publishers on Sanskrit and Indology since 1903" [2]
    • Again, there is no form of logic which would lead to any sort of conclusion from these two premises. ---Baba Louis 22:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 3. Yogiraj Gurunath's independent vision related in Wings to Freedom, in which he asserts that "This vision of mine goes to show that such great Divine Masters as Sai Baba and Lahiri Mahasaya, Kabir and the King Barthahari are one at the highest Divine level of avataric Consciousness. That is, the Nirvanic consciousness of the Lahiri Mahasaya and Kabir are also One. These bodies are a mere choosing of a garment for the particular Divine mission on this terrestrial world."
    • Visions are not adequate to establish fact. Sounds like he is saying that those who have achieved nirvanic consciousness are all connected by it, in any case. Besides, this is getting downright silly. Kabir lived in the 16th century and Lahiri Mahasaya in the 17th century. All this proves is that some people don't know when to quit saying X = Y. ---Baba Louis 22:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 4. Independent accounts that Mahavatar Babaji lived in the middle ages and independent accounts that Goraksha Nath during the middle ages. (Devi Mukherjee, Shaped by Saints, Chapter 2. Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2000. ISBN 156589149X)(Kriyananda, Swami: Conversations with Yogananda, page 244. Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2003. ISBN 156589202X)(M. Govindan, Babaji and the 18 Siddha Kriya Yoga Tradition, Kriya Yoga Publications, 1998. ISBN 1895383005)
    • Again, completely faulty logic. Both you and I live during the 21st century. Does that make us the same? ---Baba Louis 22:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Taken independently, they can be discounted, but here you have 1. an ancient text, 2. a modern well-respected publishing house, and 3. a Himalayan yogi. 4. Indepedent auxilliary accounts dating persons to same time period - 4 very different, independent sources confirming the same fact. You furthermore, have ZERO sources directly negating these facts. Please comment. Hamsacharya dan 21:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Completely faulty logic makes this speculation and original research. Doesn't belong in the article. ---Baba Louis 22:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Dan, I think it's very interesting speculation, but that's all it is. It's not proof of any kind, and surely isn't convincing.
1. is interesting speculation, and perhaps tradition, but you're drawing a conclusion that you want to draw. Swami Ramanand was the Guru of Kabir, so where does that fit in? Maybe Kabir was initiated by Ramanand, Babaji, and Gorakshanath. Or maybe Gorakshanath and Ramanand were really the same. Do you see that there are many conclusions that could be drawn from that Sikh tradition? I understand that Yogananda was initiated into Kriya by his father, by his sanskrit tutor, and finally by Sri Yukteswar, so it's not unusual to have three great yogis initiate one.
2. the same
3. visions are interesting, but not proof of anything. But it's definitely appropriate to include YGS's visions on the YGS page. Even to have your theories there. I won't object to that.
4. but that doesn't prove that they were the same person, just that they might have lived at the same time, which is by far the more obvious conclusion. Support for this conclusion comes from the tradition that Gorakshanath has a samadhi shrine, meaning he died and is buried. Mahavatar Babaji, however, is still alive.
In fact none of these prove that Mahavatar Babaji and Gorkshanath are the same, or even give much weight to the theory, especially given Yogananda's definitive and clear statement that we know not the patronymic of Mahavatar Babaji. Now that is conclusive evidence that Mahavatar Babaji is a different person than Gorakshanath.
Dan, I still stand by my vote at the top of the page, that the short mention on the Mahavatar Babaji page is a minority POV, but deserves to stay there, as is. It currently says "He (YGS) teaches that Shiv-Goraksha Babaji is the same being as Mahavatar Babaji, and the collective consciousness of the 9 primeval Nath Siddhas." ॐ Priyanath 22:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Should this be included?

In the book "THE VOICE OF BABAJI: A TRILOGY ON KRIYA YOGA", (2nd edition) which was written by V.T.Neelakantan and S.A.A. Ramaiah, it is claimed that the Mahavatar will make himself known in public around the year 2050. Moreover V.T.Neelakantan claimed that Babaji visited him frequently in the night. Should this piece of information be included in the article? I have read the whole book and the author seems to be a credible voice of Babaji. Any comments? The summary of the details of the book can be found here: [3]. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you could add a short paragraph, like the others under "Post-Yogananda claims about Mahavatar Babaji". I don't know the reliability of it, but since that section has a disclaimer in the first paragraph, there could be no objection to you adding it, since it's comparable to the others. ॐ Priyanath 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Took out mistakenly

The final sentence of that paragraph totally covers the issue. No need to try and make up the readers mind for them! Just present the facts... Sethie 15:24

I LAUGH OF YOU FOOLS, TRYING TO DEFINE ME. I AM WITHOUT DEFINITION! STOP WASTING YOUR TIME WITH SUCH SENSELESS, TIME CONSUMING DISCUSSIONS AND SET YOUR MINDS AND SPIRITS UPON ME!

BABAJI-CHRIST-KRISHNA-MOHAMED-LAOTSE...YOU NAME IT!!!!!!!!

What I would do

I thought occured to me, after reading all of these claims, and I would like to share it with all of you. I live in a poor latin-american country and I have been to India as well. Altough the level of poverty is practicaly the same, I notice that the religious fervor in India is much more evident. If I were a poor devoted Hindu, angry with the western abuse of Hindu images, I would find a way of profiting with all that. For example, what better and easier way then creating a yoga organization, claiming to be directly connected to Babaji and Shiva, teaching Kriya Yoga? Of course, at least a bunch of western fools would pay to visit me, and buy my books, cause, after all, I'm a Babaji disciple, this can only mean I am good and spiritually enlightened, in the western dollar-packed minds, filling my bank account. In the teachings of many masters it is possible to find the description of a true master. Sorry, but for me, a latin american, used with charlatains and people trying to take advantage upon others, it is quite clear to me that Mr. Yogiraj is another classical example of India's-guru-charlatain tradition, from this land of true masters, but packed with dollar minded guru freaks in every corner . Please beware, cause evil can hide itself in many forms.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/h/Talk%7EMahavatar_Babaji_Archive_1_33ec.html"