Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

A reminder on the use of self published sources

I hope that this sheds some light on what should and should not be included from YGS's autobiography. I believe that if YGS's self-aggrandizing claims were to be excluded from this article, most if not all of the apparent conflict would disappear. From Wikipedia:Verifiability (emphasis mine):

Self-published sources in articles about themselves
Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources.

To me, this means that claims not backed up by independent sources should not be included: i.e. born a Siddha, born in sahaj samadhi, claims of physical immortality or lifespans over, say, 120 years.

Claims which can be included are claims which can be backed up. For example, someone is a Nath only if they have been initiated by a living teacher, their diksha-guru. If that teacher and initiation and the year can be documented, then the article can say that YGS is a Nath; if they can't be documented, then the article should only state that YGS claims to be a Nath.

Similarly, someone is a Nath Guru only if their diksha-guru has recogized them as being a Guru and given them permission to initiate others or has passed parampara to them. If this is the case, then it can be documented and completely supports statements that YGS is a Nath Siddha or a Nath Guru; if this can't be documented, then the article should only state that YGS claims to be a Nath Guru.

Broader claims to be a Guru in general need no support other than that the subject has followers or devotees who consider the subject a Guru. This is why I modified the first point in the conflicting views section. General claims to be a Guru only need a following; specific claims to be an initiating lineage Guru require documentation of initiation and recognition as a qualified diksha-guru by one's initiator or lineage guru.

That said, I'm staying out of this particular edit war and will let the other editors apply these principles to the article.

—Adityanath 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

New edits on temp page

Original material submitted. Hamsacharya dan 06:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be organize into proper paragraph in the proper sections and Wikilinks. Don't take out birth name or other factual data. —Adityanath 06:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved talk from Hamsacharya Dan talk page re: Gurunath's quotes about his experiences of Babaji

Also, I was wondering why you decided to remove Gurunath's quotes on Babaji on the Yogiraj Gurunath page, but have left intact his quote on Sundernath? Babaji is an integral part of Gurunath's writings: please see this webpage and scroll down for full information. He has written much more on Babaji than he has on Raja Sundernath. Perhaps you'd prefer that information under the section on Beliefs? Hamsacharya dan 00:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I created that vote, not User:NoToFrauds and yes, if you would bother to read the dispute resolution page, you will find that conducting a survey is part of the official WP process for resolving disputes when discussion has failed to resolve them. As for the YGS quotes about Babaji, shouldn't they be on the Shiv-Goraksha Babaji page? I don't have to explain everything I do to you. I improve articles as I see fit. That's how WP works. Take it from there without reverting, and you will get along fine... ---Baba Louis 17:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they should be on both pages. Gurunath's modus operandi is based on inspiration by Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, and thus it should be on his page. Gurunath's spiritual experiences of Babaji belong primarily on Gurunath's page, but can be added to Babaji's page as well, if there is a need to flesh out his character. Thus, I'm going to put his quotes back into the YGS page, as they are definitely topical. At least as topical as the quotes about Sundernath. Hamsacharya dan 23:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Copyright violation?

The information on this page appears to have been taken verbatim from a copyrighted website. In particular, http://www.hamsa-yoga.org/whoisgurunath.html This requires documentation of who the original author is and documentation that they have agreed to license it under the GFDL. Please provide this documentation or this page will have to be listed as a copyright violation to be investigated and deleted. -Adityanath 23:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Suitability

Copyright violation has been listed according to Wikipedia policy. In any case, this page violated other Wikipedia policies as well. It was a promotional page rather than an NPOV encyclopedic page. While I am sure that the subject is worthy of an article, it will need to be written in such a way as to simply present the facts without an adulatory tone. Here is more information on how to write a good biography of a living person. -Adityanath 23:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (Moved from User_talk:Adityanath)

Hi Adityanath,

I want to respond to the issues regarding Yogiraj Gurunath. Firstly, I would like to give some information about his lineage and background. His birth name is Sidhoji Rao Shitole, and was born in Gwalior in an aristocratic family on May 10, 1944. Yogiraj's spiritual lineage and filial lineage are incidentally from the same origin. The Shitoleas are related with the Sisodias, which go back to the Solar dynastic and Royal lineage of the Buddha and Ram. Buddha's guru's were known to be Naths as well - forgive me, I don't have the reference for that on hand.

Here I have to dipute the imputation. Being a Nath is not inherited by birth. It is an initiatory Guru-chela tradition. One has to be initiated by a living Nath Guru to be considered a Nath in the spiritual sense. The other information is historically interesting, but not useful as any kind of proof of one's Nath status. Adityanath

Yogiraj was born in Sahaj Samadhi, and is a siddha by birth - I understand that this is my POV, so you can take it or leave it. He was educated at Sherwood College in Nainital in his youth, and you can find references to that online, including the college's POV on his background and history. He spent his early years in the Himalayas amongst the Naths - his direct Master is Raja Sundernath - who meditates in the caves at Allahabad - he is a Siddha-Avadhoot-Avatar - his portrait can be found hanging on the walls of the major Ashrams in the Himalayan foothills, and anybody who knows anything there will tell you that he is a supremely advanced being. One reference you may wish to check is that of the Mahayogi Pilot Baba Ashram at Gethia. They have no association with Gurunath whatsoever, however, I found Raja Sundernath's portrait hanging on the walls of their meditation facility just the same. Please understand that not all knowledge of Naths can be found in books. If you ever get a chance to attend a satsang of Yogiraj Gurunath, you can feel free to ask anything you wish about the Nath tradition and his history - you will find him to be an invaluable resource.

With respect to Raja Sundernath, I looked him up on the web and it appears that Sundernath is his family name. Many given and family names in India include the word 'nath' in them. This does not make the bearer an initiate of a Nath lineage. This is a source of great confusion about the Nath lineage. Now, of course he could also be a Nath in the spiritual sense, but one would have to know who his Guru is, etc. Adityanath

Regarding Mahavatar Babaji - Yogiraj Gurunath is the first person to connect this Being with Gorakshanath; however Gorakshanath has been connected with Adinath in the Shiv Purana. Yogiraj calls Babaji the "Nameless One" or the "Nonbeing Essentiality." He is also called in the Himalayas by the Nath yogis as "The Lightning Standing Still," or "Mahabhinishkaran" which means "The Great Sacrifice." He has many other names, just as Shiva has many names, but the name "Mahavatar Babaji" is a recent terminology which has come about only in the last century and a half by the Lahiri Mahasaya lineages for Kriya Yoga. It should also be noted that the Nath practice of "Shiva Shakti" pranayam is the same practice as given in Babaji's Kriya Yoga, thus connecting Babaji with the Nath Sampradaya. It is also given in the Shiv Purana that Gorakshanath was born from the heart of Shiva in order to fulfill the desire of his greatest disciple Matsyendranath to have a disciple even greater than himself.

This is all very interesting but certainly POV. My lineage certainly recognizes Gorakshanath as a great Guru of the lineage, and accessible on spiritual planes to the initiate, but believe he is certainly quite dead on the physical level. Bhagawan Nityananda states that his samadhi shrine (tomb) is at Nath Mandir near Ganeshpuri. While my lineage does not have any specific information like this, we certainly believe his remains are in a samadhi shrine somewhere! Adityanath

How does one verify a source and when does it cease to be a POV? Does it have to come from a book? And does that book also need to be written by someone with a PhD after his name or in the case of a Guru, does he have to have written records of his lineage for the past 1000 years? I don't know who makes the decisions on that... Yogiraj Gurunath is a world expert on Yoga and its variegated history of 10,000+ years, on the Nath Tradition, on The Nameless Being mentioned above, on the secret areas of the Himalayas known as the Land of the Hamsas. He is also an expert on the topic of the Superconscious states of Samadhi and Nirvana. He has written a book entitled Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis, which I recommend as an excellent reference on the topics I've just mentioned.

Now see, this sort of thing is POV. YGS says many things that as a Nath I do not agree with. That is, they are not a common part of the broader Nath tradition but are rather unique to his teaching. I would like to see only things which are common to all Naths in the Nath article. Things specific to YGS and HYS should be in their respective articles (I'd recommend a separate article on HYS rather than a redirect). This is always best if there is any dispute, otherwise a back and forth edit war may break out. Adityanath

I have found your edits to be generally level-headed and attempting to be unbiased. I would like to include Yogiraj's information on Wikipedia for the purpose of including his expertise to help elucidate these difficult and esoteric concepts.

Thank you. I personally want to give YGS the benefit of the doubt and also would like to see an article about him on WP. I would advise you to be careful with unverifiable claims, though. You cannot control the article and people will feel compelled to dispute them. I would recommend putting just verifiable facts in the article with a link to HYS web pages for additional detail. The article should be a simply biography rather than a hagiography. That is the way I've treated the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page—I have not included his less verifiable and more disputable claims. They can be found and judged on our websites, but noone will feel the need to dispute them on WP. Adityanath 15:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to make sure that copyrights are not violated, and would like clarification as to how it works on Wikipedia. I have permission from the copyright owner to reprint as necessary, but don't know what the ramifications of that are on Wikipedia, nor do I know what the procedure is for providing the proper verification of the reprinting rights. I would appreciate your help in clarifying that matter.

Thanks, Hamsacharya dan 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

initial response on copyright issues

Hello. Thanks for your note. I'll respond to the copyright info first. You might want to read the page GFDL. While you can give limited permission for an image, you can't for text. All text on WP is automatically released under the GFDL, which basicly means that anyone can use, reuse, edit or otherwise do whatever they want with it, including print it, change it to say the opposite of what it originally said, etc. etc. as long as they also license the result under the GFDL. WP policy is that the author or copyright agent responsible for the work has to explicitly release the material under GFDL. Thus when I move stuff I wrote from nathorder.org to here I put a comment that says that I wrote it and that I GFDL it. I suspect that if the HYS copyright agent understands these implications that they will not want to release under GFDL. I may be wrong though. If they agree, simply go to the entry on the WP:CV page and put a note under it which states who is the copyright agent and that they gave permission to release under the GFDL and probably give some means of contact so the admins can verify this directly.
I'll respond to the rest of your message later as I've only had time to scan it quickly this AM. One thing that stands out, though, is the idea of being a Siddha by birth. Do you mean a member of the Siddha lineage, or do you simply mean that he had siddhis at birth. The former is not possible as far as I know. I suspect that many misunderstandings may simply be wording. Another possible misunderstanding is the use of the term "Adi Nath Sampradaya" - I think YGS uses it as a synonym for "Nath Sampradaya" - unforunately it was also the name of a small subsect of the Naths which came to an end with the death of Shri Gurudev Mahendranath. I'm sure we can come up with wording which will allow this distinction to be made explicit in the Adi Nath article.
More later --Adityanath 14:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to response from Adityanath

Sorry, I don't know how to make those response indentations that you make..

Adityanath: "Here I have to dipute the imputation. Being a Nath is not inherited by birth. It is an initiatory Guru-chela tradition. One has to be initiated by a living Nath Guru to be considered a Nath in the spiritual sense. The other information is historically interesting, but not useful as any kind of proof of one's Nath status."

You have misunderstood me. I am saying that his spiritual lineage - the nath tradition founded by Adinath, originates at the same place as his family lineage - the Solar dynasty dates back to Vivasvat, the spirit of our Sun, who was initiated by Adinath. Buddha and Ram were also filially connected with the Solar dynasty. Buddha in addition to his filial connection with the Solar dynasty, also had Nath gurus.
Gotcha. You will need to be more explicit in your eventual article so as not to confuse others about that.

Adityanath: "With respect to Raja Sundernath, I looked him up on the web and it appears that Sundernath is his family name. Many given and family names in India include the word 'nath' in them. This does not make the bearer an initiate of a Nath lineage. This is a source of great confusion about the Nath lineage. Now, of course he could also be a Nath in the spiritual sense, but one would have to know who his Guru is, etc."

I don't know where you got your information about Raja Sundernath, but here is a quote from Wings to Freedom regarding Sundernath's lineage: "I stood in awe, lost in the admiration of this divine yogi of the Gorakshanath lineage. He was recently, in 1924, the Mahant of the Goraknath temple at Gorakpur, and belongs to the DharamNath subsect of Goraknath yogis. Sundernath is the same yogi who entered the body of a South Indian cow-herd and became the Siddha Tirumoolar who wrote the famous treatise on yoga - Tirumantirum. He is still alive in his Sanjeevan body at Alkapuri on the Indo-China border. The Nath established in Svaroop Samadhi, truly the likes of whom saved India's spiritual heritage from the fate that befell ancient Egypt, Babylon, China, Tibet and the Mayan civilization of South America."
This is great information. I am pleased to hear that Raja Sundarnath was Mahant of the Goraknath temple at Gorakpur in 1924. Do you know when he left that position to move to the cave you mentioned before? What year did YGS meet him and take initiation from him? This does answer a question for me though: it confirms that YGS is not a member of the Adi Nath sampradaya or subsect, but rather a member of the Dharam Nath sampradaya or subsect. They must admit householders - or was YGS a sannyasin at the time?

Adityanath: "This is all very interesting but certainly POV. My lineage certainly recognizes Gorakshanath as a great Guru of the lineage, and accessible on spiritual planes to the initiate, but believe he is certainly quite dead on the physical level. Bhagawan Nityananda states that his samadhi shrine (tomb) is at Nath Mandir near Ganeshpuri. While my lineage does not have any specific information like this, we certainly believe his remains are in a samadhi shrine somewhere!"

These beings are the veritable gods, and who can say what body garments they take on and off at will. What is written in a book, and what temples may be built in honor of these beings have no bearing on the facticity of things as they are. Truth is stranger than fiction or interpretation, which is created by the minds of average men. You don't learn the Theory of General Relativity by reading a children's picture book..
I was going to say "no comment," but then I remembered Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity In Words of Four Letters or Less. My own personal finding is that spiritual things are not difficult to learn because they are complex, but rather because they are extremely simple. The mind wants to complexify them in such a way that it actually obscures them completely. YMMV.

Adityanath: "Thank you. I personally want to give YGS the benefit of the doubt and also would like to see an article about him on WP. I would advise you to be careful with unverifiable claims, though. You cannot control the article and people will feel compelled to dispute them. I would recommend putting just verifiable facts in the article with a link to HYS web pages for additional detail. The article should be a simply biography rather than a hagiography. That is the way I've treated the Shri Gurudev Mahendranath page—I have not included his less verifiable and more disputable claims. They can be found and judged on our websites, but noone will feel the need to dispute them on WP."

Some verifiable facts, are only verifiable by traveling to the proper location. Books don't contain everything. The problem is that there is so much garbage out there that people become jaded by suspicion and cynicism. There is no way to combat this but to keep putting forward One's truth, which one believes in, and the right people will read it and grow from it. I believe the information I am presenting is of the most superior quality available, and can be verified only by personal experience. No one has ever proved God, and no one has ever disproved God. In science, a proof is also a relative phenomenon based on available data and human interpretation. I will maintain my claim that this information is true, and will continue to attempt to keep it available for those that it is intended to inform.
That's fine. As long as you are reporting what YGS says, claims or believes and can quote or reference it in his book, then you are reporting verfiable fact. If you present it as "the truth" many may, as you say, argue that it is not proven. In writing about Shri Gurudev Mahendranath, I have found that sometimes simply saying that it was his stated belief that x y z make a potentially arguable fact into an undisputable one.

Adityanath: "I'll respond to the rest of your message later as I've only had time to scan it quickly this AM. One thing that stands out, though, is the idea of being a Siddha by birth. Do you mean a member of the Siddha lineage, or do you simply mean that he had siddhis at birth. The former is not possible as far as I know. I suspect that many misunderstandings may simply be wording. Another possible misunderstanding is the use of the term "Adi Nath Sampradaya" - I think YGS uses it as a synonym for "Nath Sampradaya" - unforunately it was also the name of a small subsect of the Naths which came to an end with the death of Shri Gurudev Mahendranath. I'm sure we can come up with wording which will allow this distinction to be made explicit in the Adi Nath article."

A Siddha is means "One who is accomplished" and refers to perfected Masters who have transcended the Ahamkar (Ego or I-maker), have subdued their minds to be subservient to their Awareness, and have transformed their bodies composed of dense Rajo-tama Gunas into pure Sattvic light. This is done only by persistent meditation over many lifetimes. The Siddhis as paranormal abilities are only emergent properties of a Siddha, and do not define a Siddha, who is established in the Pranav - the Aum, which is the spiritual substrate of creation. The Siddhi in its pure form means "the attainment of flawless identity with Reality (Brahman), perfection of spirit.

Hamsacharya dan 20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have all the information you need to write a neutral and objective biography of YGS. I would suggest putting the unvarnished facts about his birth, education and so forth first, followed by a section describing what he said about his spritual teachers, initations and spiritual education. The more details as to dates and places the better. Finally followed by his beliefs and statements about his attainments and his current teachings. Some details I would personally like to see are: the approximate date he started his teaching career, and the date he took on his current name-YGS-along with whether it was given to him by one of his teachers or whether he took it himself. If you write an article with a tone of informing but not trying to convince, it will be hard for anyone to find fault with it... -Adityanath 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and if you start a new page at Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath/Temp, it will be automatically moved into place once the WP admins catch up with the copyright problem backlog. -Adityanath 21:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Adityanath. I appreciate your help.
Regarding spiritual concepts being simple or complex - I am generally in agreement with your opinion on this. However, this is not to the point of what I was trying to convey - my point is that what is conventionally believed (by society by and large) is not necessarily what is true (the facticity of things as they are). I think my analog of relativity/picture book was not the best one to use - the reason for using it was to point out that a childrens book may alter concepts to appease the mind of a child rather than presenting the bare facts. A better example that takes the complexity issue out of the equation would be the Bible - what did Jesus actually say and mean versus what are all the myriad of interpretations. Only an individual who has elevated their own minds to the level of Divine Mind that Jesus was operating from has the chance of making a clear interpretation of his message (such as Sri Yukteswar with his book "The Holy Science" or Yogananda with his reference text "The Second Coming of Christ") - the average man will always twist an interpretation to fit the confines of his own limited reality, not the Absolute Reality of Brahman.
I should also note that complexity and simplicity are exactly the same at their extremes - this befits the nature of mind, which is always bound to itself by PARADOX. According to Yogiraj Gurunath, in his meeting with the Nameless Being that he refers to as Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, Babaji asked him to peel an onion. When he peeled off all the layers, Babaji asked him what did he find in the center. Gurunath noted that there was nothing in the center. Babaji laughed, and replied, "My son, the Truth of Truths is this: That from the Nothingness is the Everything created."
Hamsacharya dan 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I have to agree with NoToFrauds below. The onion analogy is an old one and not newly discovered by YGS. I know Sri Chimnoy has used it but the funny thing is that it is not even exclusively Indian. The same analogy was used in Qabalah by Isaac Luria in the 14th century. It was probably old even then.
But more seriously, my first recommendation is that you create the Shiv-Goraksha Babaji article. I've already linked to it from both Mahavatar Babaji and Gorakshanath. You can say whatever you want there and nobody will try to delete it. Help you refine it maybe, but you will be the defender and that is the better position, don't you think? -Adityanath 01:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
See? This is the problem with your fake guru YGS. His onion story is nothing but a cheap rehash of the Banyan seed analogy in the Upanishads. That is why nobody who truly knows take the words and claims of your guru seriously. He is a plagiarizer, a schemer and a flat-out liar. He thrives on riding behind the back of existing stories and personalities, tweak them a bit, and uses them to further his own agenda.
Have you heard the story of the kriyabans who took initiation from him? They did it to test the degree of his knowledge. What he taught them is a nonsense invented breathing technique that does not even remotely resemble Kriya Yoga pranayama as taught by Lahiri Mahasaya, asked them to visualize a duck, and shouted what sounded like "PHACK!" Your fake guru YGS is considered a nuisance, he is the laughingstock of the Kriya Yoga community and his works as viewed upon as trash.
By the way, Dan. You claimed to be a neuroscientist by profession (though I am not surprised. It seems to be natural for you Hamsa guys to claim all sorts of outlandish things) and I have openly asked you to prove it by mentioning the university where you graduated as well as your place of work so that we can verify your claims. Where are they? And another thing, are you also Batman?
No To Frauds 12:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Adityanath - What are you specifically agreeing with? That the story is old? That Yogiraj stole the story and claims to be its originator? That he is a fraud? You are not being specific enough. So what if it's an old story? Yogiraj was recounting a life event, not claiming to be the originator of a story. In fact, that it was told many times throughout history by saints and scholars only adds to the depth of character of a person who uses such a profound story to teach neophytes about the august mysteries of spirit, rather than rehashing platitudes used by modern spiritual pandits. Everything has been done before - The Yoga Vasistha also discusses the essence of Reality being the Nothingness. Everything anybody says is old wine in new bottles. Sat Gurus are few and far between. It doesn't make "No to Frauds" right for slandering a man without showing any evidence whatsoever.
No to Frauds - why don't you back your own claims up with some verifiable references. Your claims are BASELESS. You have been labeled a [VANDAL] by Wikipedia. Furthermore, why do you want personal details of my life? I don't have to prove myself to you and I'm not going to reveal my personal information about my schooling to you, as it's quite irrelevant to the matter at hand, and I don't trust you at all. I don't know if you are a criminal and wish to do me personal harm - so why would I give you personal details about my life? You obviously have an ulterior motive - and a strong desire to slander Yogiraj Gurunath and Hamsa Yoga Sangh. The truth will prevail, your claims are laughable, and the karmic seeds you are sewing by slandering a saint will be your own to deal with.
Careful, Dan. You're quite close to being labeled a vandal yourself.... then who's in the right? —Adityanath 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
How so Adityanath? I've NEVER removed anybody else's information on any page. You have. Hamsacharya dan 05:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Revert Mahavatar Babaji to your version one more time and you'll find out. Why not develop Shiv-Goraksha Babaji and revisit this when you regain your objectivity. —Adityanath 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you another clue: repeatedly adding stuff to an article when the other editors have made it clear they don't think it belongs there is also considered vandalism. Hint, hint. —Adityanath 05:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
What kind of leverage do you have to make that threat? Do you have any references to Wikipedia policy? Hamsacharya dan 05:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to tell you. I'm waiting for you to hang yourself. You're on the verge of engaging in behavior that will get you banned. Why the HELL do you have to put YGS into everybody else's articles when you haven't even bothered to start writing an article about HIM. I'm starting to think you're a fill-in-the blank-yourself. Here's the door:- Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Temp - use it. —Adityanath 06:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
SINCE WHEN DOES KRIYA YOGA BELONG TO THE SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP? SINC WHEN DOES MAHAVATAR BABAJI BELONG TO SRF? SINCE WHEN DOES NATH TRADITION BELONG TO YOU? These are Ancient and Catholic - universal. THAT'S why the HELL I put him in there. THEY DON'T BELONG TO ANYONE.
Dude, you're losing it! Take a deep breath and practice some pranayama! I though yogis were supposed to be above succumbing to anger. Perhaps you're having a problem with attachment? —Adityanath 07:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
You ...personal attack removed... Look what you made me do?? :-) I wasn't angry, big letters help get the point across..
So now you're calling Adityanath a ...personal attack removed... What is that by the way? Is it similar to PHACK? Just asking.
Dan, it was you who claimed that you are a neuroscientist. I hope you still remember, it was only a few days ago. So you don't have any credentials to back it up? I'm not at all surprised, like teacher like student. It makes me think you just claimed to be a neuroscientist to add credibility to yourself.
Look at you, you are a ...personal attack removed.... No real scientist would behave like that and believe claims like Siddha by birth, direct disciple of Babaji, real saint, etc. When all Sidhoji Rao Shitole (nice surname by the way, sounds very appropriate) really does is take old stories, put them in the mouths of other people, and include himself in them. Like what he did to the onion analogy, which you yourself admitted to be a rehash.
Wow! What did he do to you, man? What did he feed you? I would think twice before drinking that Kool Aide though. Seriously, please stop inserting your ...personal attack removed... in other people's articles. Seek professional help if it is becoming an obsession. And you call yourself an acharya? By the way there is no such thing as Hamsacharya, that is another invention by Shitole the inventor.
No To Frauds 14:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm so glad all your comments are being recorded ...personal attack removed.... Looks like the moderators will have plenty of evidence to see how biased you are. And how ...personal attack removed... - oh, but that's just my POV - I wouldn't put that in a post unless I explicity stated that. But I might add a link in the External link section to your picture under the listing for ...personal attack removed... in the illustrated dictionary so everyone could point and laugh.

New 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)

Discussion moved here from Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Temp

FACTS belong in article and should not be removed:

  • Birth name
  • Birth date
  • Birth place
  • Education (add range of years at school of known)

This is about a person, not a god.

—Adityanath 06:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This article reads like a halfwit fairy tale.

Such things as "born in Sahaj Samadhi," "Siddha by birth," etc. should be removed because they are unverifiable fanatical claims and opinions only. They do not belong in an encyclopedia. Someone like Dan Kogan who claims to be a "neuroscientist" should at least know that.

The definition of Siddha belongs to the article with the same name.

The information about Shiv-Goraksha Babaji belongs to an article with the same name.

Claims of being related to the Buddha and Rama should be substantiated by a comprehensive Geneology. If this is impossible then it should not be mentioned at all or qualified with the word "allegedly."

Raja Sundernath should have his own article. The quote of Shitole's book about Raja Sundernath should also be removed. This article is about Shitole and not about Raja Sundernath.

It should also be clearly mentioned that other Naths as well as Kriya Yogis from the Lineage of Lahiri Mahasaya do not recognize Shitole.

NoToFrauds 18:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on many of these points. Article should not promote the wonderificness of the teacher, only the facts. That's what the external link to his organization's web site would be for... However, I don't agree with you on the last point. This article is about the subject and not about other people or organizations opinion of him. If the unverifiable and outlandish claims are removed and the article becomes more factual, I don't see what the point would be either. Wikilinks will take the user to more infomation about the various traditions...

---Baba Louis 23:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

conflicting views

These edits seem to conflict with no original research. Please include verifiable references when quoting opinions. Edits will be removed until proof of original research is shown. Hamsacharya dan 04:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Referring to conflicting view #3: Bhagwan Nityananda has stated that the soul is always immortal. Sanatan Dharma verifies this claim. Physical body is always considered perishable. Your viewpoint does not hold up. See Yogananda quote: [[1]] Hamsacharya dan 04:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't control the article. I am away from my reference materials at the moment, but you know these conflicting views exist as well as I do. Once you put this article on Wikipedia, you agreed to allow conflicting views to be added per NPOV. Continued reverts will be reported. Chai Walla 04:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Both your and YGS's statement seem to imply physical immortality. If you are not claiming physical immortality, which incidently makes Shiv-Goraksha Babaji different from Mahavatar Babaji, then please qualify your statements by using phrases such as immortality of the soul and reference the reincarnations of the beings. Are you saying that the 700 years of Raja Sundernath are not in the same body? Then make that explicit, Otherwise criticism and opposing views assuming the usual meaning of the word immortal are completely valid, imo. Adityanath 15:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and report whatever you want. Your edits must include references to original research. These so called opinions must reflect a POV shared by visible cross-section of those who are involved in the details. For example, the definition of Sat Guru that you have included is not shared by the majority, nor is it shared by the literature. Thus, it is not rooted in any respected sources. Please do not add baseless information to wikipedia. Hamsacharya dan 05:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are so full of sectarian bullshit, it is unbelievable. Don't you know that each sect has a different view, so it is easy to pull ANY view out of your hat!!! It is my opinion that User:Chai Walla has valid points and you need to allow him to develop them. Stop being so impatient that you won't let people finish their work. He can add references later, just as you have. Chill, dude. ---Baba Louis 05:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but please refrain from personal attacks. This is not a place for that, and goes against Wikipedia policy. Also, Chai Walla has been deleting researched information from the NATH page, and inserting unresearched information into this page - once again violating wikipedia guidelines. Hamsacharya dan 05:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Yogananda never wrote anywhere that Mahavatar Babaji was Shiva. This was reported as a claim hat Yogananda told a disciple that Babaji was Krishna.

And your point is? That is precisely what the conflicting opinion is about, and more or less what it says. What are you disagreeing with? ---Baba Louis 05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

TYPO - HE never wrote that Babaji was Krishna. Hamsacharya dan 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WRONG, Dan Kogan. Yogananda explicitly wrote that Mahavatar Babaji and Krishna are one. This can be found in God Talks With Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita (Self-Realization Fellowship Publishers). -- No To Frauds 13:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Then please add this fact and reference to the article. This is great. Adityanath 15:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Great. Text has been modified. Reference is all of Yogananda's writings, which do not mention Mahavatar Babaji as connected with Shiva or the Naths. ---Baba Louis 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

YOGANANDA never wrote for or against this opinion. Lack of opinion does not constitute a claim of anyone. If I never make a reference to the sky being blue, it doesn't mean that I believe that the sky is purple. ONCE AGAIN, please refrain from unverifiable claims. Content must be verifiable. 128.195.111.122 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WRONG AGAIN. See above. -- No To Frauds 13:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

2. A SatGuru is one, according to the literature, who is in a state of Nirvikalpa samadhi, and can transmit shaktipat energy to the disciple. Your claim is inaccurate.

No inividual is a Guru in the technical sense unless they have received parampara. Your definition is incomplete. From whom did Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath receive parampara? I agree that this is a valid question and should be included. This is common knowledge in the field and does not need references. I may be able to supply them later myself if User:Chai Walla does not. ---Baba Louis 05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Until you do, it is opinion. The esoteric definition of SatGuru is one who gives shaktipat. that is the true initiation - any form of fanfare or religiosity is just that. Just because someone is initiated, doesn't make them a guru - that is called diksha. See Muktananda's Guru Gita, as well as Bhagavad Gita.

An article on Wikipedia itself has been referenced. Gurus are made by their gurus; they are not self-made. This is well known enough to have other references on WP as well. You seem to be rather uneducated in the tradition. Please do not revert based on the limitations of your own knowledge. ---Baba Louis 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
According to the Gita as well as Vasishta Yoga (among others that I've come across, but don't recall the reference to), The only SatGuru is God (the Paramatma - or Shiva) - who was never initiated by anyone. A human is a SatGuru when he can say "Me and my father are One" - this is in a state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi (also known as Asamprajnata Samadhi, or Nirvana). I've never heard or read anywhere before that a SatGuru becomes such when his Guru dies. Where did you get that from? There is a definite difference between a Guru and a SatGuru. One of the tests of a SatGuru is whether he or she can transmit shaktipat. Hamsacharya dan 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Dan, no one is arguing about this anymore. I modified the point to be specifically about whether he has a Nath diksha-guru. Even a Sat Guru must follow the formalities if they wish to claim a specific lineage. I agree with you that the original statement was too broad to be true. The current statement is much narrower. —Adityanath 16:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's the deal Aditya: In this particular case, assuming Raja Sundernath initiated YGS into the Nath Sampradaya, Raja Sundernath is a jivanmukta - he has no karma, and is thus residing in his body temple through pure will - that's what Gurunath means by his "Sanjeevan Body" - Sanjeevan Yoga is the Yoga of Will. He can leave his body at any time, but he chooses to stay. He initiated Gurunath, and Gurunath's function in society as an initiatory SatGuru is at the behest of his Guru and his ParamGuru - Babaji. Thus, it makes no difference if his Guru is alive or dead - his Guru is beyond death. The same thing was happening with Matyendranath and Gorakshanath - they were both initiating disciples while their masters were alive - one's master is Shiva and the other's master is Matyendranath. In the same vein, Lahiri Mahasaya was initiating at the behest of his direct Guru Babaji - who was and is still alive. Same with Sri Yukteswar, and Yogananda. These precendents are in direct contradiction to you conflicting view. Hamsacharya dan 02:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Dan, I don't and won't accept this excuse for an explanation. It is fantasy hand-waving. YGS either was initiated by a living verifiable Nath diksha-guru or he wasn't. Don't waste your effort on me. I don't buy that immortal Babaji/Goraksha crap. The Nath Sampradaya is an initiated tradition. No initiator, not a Nath. The point is a valid one and has to stay in the article until proof is supplied in the form of details rather than hand-waving. Don't bother to keep waving your hands, it makes you look ridiculous. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. And if you put it in, you have to accept that it is contested by people who take a more practical and realistic view of things. And that there's a conflict between outlandish claims and the traditional way someone becomes and is recognized as a Nath is a fact that does belong in the article. —Adityanath 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Adityanath - you call it handwaving, but nothing could be more explicit. The entire modern, historically sourced, Kriya yoga lineage opposes your claim - every single Kriya guru was alive when his disciple started giving diksha. Yogananda was in America for 16 years before his Guru died, and had been giving initiations for many years prior to coming to America. Sri Yukteswar started initiating 11 years after Lahiri Mahasaya gave him diksha. Lahiri Mahasaya started giving diksha immediately after his meeting with Babaji, when he was about 30 years old. Simple. Raja Sundernath is clearly a nath, due to his history as Mahant. What else do you want from me? Hamsacharya dan 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not talking about Kriya Yoga, Dan. I'm talking about the Nath Sampradaya, a lineage of which I am a member and you are not. And switching topics like that is part of your handwaving. Except for YGS and his stories, the Naths and Kriya Yoga have nothing to do with each other and never have. That's also part of the hand waving. All claims about the Nath must be measured against the academic literature about the Naths. Kriya yoga is something altogther different and unrelated. If you wish to argue this, please give academic references. Otherwise, keep the traditions seperate and judge each by its own criteria. —Adityanath 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
They're not separate man - Shiva-Shakti is a tantric Nath technique. It is also the fundamental pranayam given in Kriya Yoga diksha. You're seeing a difference where there is none. Raja Sundernath's pictures are all over the ashrams in the Himalayas and he's been written about in several books, which I've cited. I'm sorry, but you're going to be hard-pressed to find any Himalayan yogis' works published by University Presses - I guess they're not pedantic enough for them. I understand that you want specific references, and I have referred you to the Shiva Purana, the Guru Gita, and the Bhagavad Gita. Furthermore, regarding Hamsa Yoga, I've also added references to the Gheranda Samhita and the Vigyan Bhairava. Not to be rude, but by the same token, I have asked you 3 times for references from you about where does it specifically say that one cannot give diksha unless one's guru has passed away? You are accusing me of dodging your questions, but despite the numerous references I've pointed out, I haven't gotten a straight answer from you yet! And you're acting frustrated with me - on what grounds? This article is about Yogiraj Gurunath and his beliefs - we'll make every effort to source them, and we'll happily remove "outlandish" claims, but it's fundamentally about him. Unless you start backing up your own claims, I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue. Hamsacharya dan 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I already have backed up my observations, Dan. You haven't proved that the Naths have anything to do with Kriya Yoga. You haven't given a credible initiator for YGS and you haven't shown that he received either parampara or dispensation from his initiator to make him a Nath Guru. I have no opinion on his other Guru claims. Someone can be a Guru in general simply because he has students who think he is. But to claim to be a member of the Nath Sampradaya requires some more details. And there are plenty of reference works on the Naths, some of which I've mentioned. None of mine so much as mention either Kriya Yoga or Babaji in the text, index or footnotes. Your "reasoning" is simply a chain of loose associations, rather like Qabalistic reasoning. It constitutes nothing stronger than opinion. It too weak to even call "original research," and I'll think you'll find that you can't find a reliable academic source which even shows that other people hold the same opinions, much less present it as established fact. Wikipedia policy is that the more outlandish the claim, the better the reference needed. If you want to make outlandish claims, you'll need an academic reference. That's WP policy, not mine. Personally, I want to see you solidly establish this article by providing the hard fact. I assumed when I started discussing these matters with you that you actually had facts to back up your claims. Now I see that I was mistaken. —Adityanath 13:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm also trying to figure out what part of parampara you fail to understand. I've pointed you to the guru-shishya tradition page as well. Do you understand the meaning of the word succession? There is always only one guru in each Nath sub-sect. All that guru's initiates are his shishyas or chelas. While the guru is alive, his shishyas defer to him. If anyone asks a shishya for initiation, they take them to the guru or get the guru's explicit permission or blessing to perform the initiation themselves. A shishya would not conceive of calling himself a guru until his guru has passed. When the guru passes, he chooses one of his shishya to become the lineage holder or new guru of the tradition. Are you telling me that you don't know this? How can you be qualified to write anything about the Naths if you don't know even this most basic fact of what parampara (succession) means? It means the same thing for the Naths as it means for Kings. The King is dead, long live the King. —Adityanath 14:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

3. According to the Shiv Puranas, Gorakshanath is a manifestation of Shiva - direct, in order to fulfill the desire of his disciple, Matyendranath - a manifestation of Krishna.

Would you kindly quote verbatim a credible English translation of that part of the scripture stating that Gorakshanath is a manifestation of Shiva? You must also realize that even if you are able to establish that point, which you won't, it would still be immaterial and irrelevant because it will still fail to support the connection between a Shiv-Gorakshanath Babaji (which is just a fabricated character) and the Mahavatar Babaji that Yogananda mentioned in Autobiography of a Yogi. The late Shiva Yogaswami of Sri Lanka, for example, is widely regarded as a manifestation of Shiva, does that automatically make him the same person as Mahavatar Babaji or the hallucinated "master" Shiv-Gorakshanath Babaji?
Are you too stupid to get the point, Dan Kogan? I am not making a personal attack, by the way, just asking you. I want to put it to you straight, you are the only one who wants your cult leader Mr. Shithole in WP. We all think he is sh_t, fake, and a con artist who capitalizes on the name of popular personalities and the silliest outlandish claims to get money. His writings aren't worth anything, they do not add an iota of essential or valuable information in either the Mahavatar Babaji, Nath or Adi Nath articles. You want to turn WP into a propaganda, an open advertisement for your cult. Please stop pretending that you are after the welfare of WP. The people here are not that stupid. The only reason we are allowing the mention of your nuisance cult leader in the Mahavatar Babaji article is because we pity you. But all references to him will be removed in the future, I assure you that. -- No To Frauds 13:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is the Gorakhnath Sampradaya view. Other sampradaya have different views. This "fact" you quote is not common to all Nath sub-sects. I agree that the conflicting view exists. ---Baba Louis 05:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet your reference was not of a nath subsect. Nor is it the sole view our the goraknath sampradaya - it is traditional view held by the majority of Indians. The Puranas are scholarly writings. Hamsacharya dan 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Once again, you must adhere to wikipedia policy of showing original research, which you have not done. Please refrain from adding biased opinions that are unsubstantiated. We welcome well-researched information. Hamsacharya dan 05:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is common sense that people who believe a corpse has been buried do not accept claims that the individual is still living. Common sense objections do not need references per WP policy. See WP policy on common sense. (Find it yourself). ---Baba Louis 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Much of the Ancient Indian scriptures are not integrated with modern science or verifiable claims. Thus the scriptures themselves are the verifying sources. You yourself are making non-common-sense claims. 128.195.111.122 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My two cents? Not all Hindus accept all scriptures. Surely you know that. Many of the Nath sects are complete renunciates in accordance with the Samnyasa Upanishad. They renounce sacred texts and rely only on the oral tradition which is communicated to them. Some Naths don't believe in the supposed physical immortality of Gorakshanath. I am one of them. Introduce me to even a single verifiable 200 year old man and I'll reconsider. Meanwhile, any claim of immortality flys against common sense and there is no reason not to point this out. You are welcome to add your counter-arguments to a rebuttal section of the article, of course. Why have you chosen to simply revert the work of other editors? Guru worship a problem much? Adityanath 22:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution: MOVED FROM ARTICLE

In order to facilitate dispute resolution, these highly controversial additions to YGS article have been moved here. Dispute over highly controversial and POV content should be resolved first, before re-insertion of finalized materials from this dispute. Present article has been limited to verifiable information that conforms to no original research.

Those who wish to be included in mediation proceedings, sign below this line:


Conflicting views

Due to several conflicts with historical tradition, there are some questions which have been raised about some of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's claims.

  • Normally, one cannot be considered a Nath diksha-guru (initiating guru) until one's own Guru has passed away and formally bestowed parampara on one as his successor (see Guru-shishya tradition). Since it is claimed that Gurunath's diksha-guru Raja Sundernath can still be found meditating in a cave in Alkapuri, either this claim or the claim to Guru status must be in error.
  • The claim that Shiv-Goraksha Babaji is the same as Mahavatar Babaji is not recognized by followers of the Yogananda lineage based on the fact that Yogananda never wrote that Mahavatar Babaji was a manifestation of Shiva and also did not mention any correspondance of Mahavatar Babaji with the Nath tradition. (See works of Paramahansa Yogananda).
  • The claim that Shiv-Goraksha Babaji is the same as Gorakshanath is not accepted by those who believe that Gorakshanath was not immortal, but rather that his remains are located in a samadhi shrine (tomb) located either at the Gorakhnath Temple in Gorakhpur, India (traditional) or, according to Bhagawan Nityananda, at Nath Mandir near the Vajreshwari temple about a kilometer from Ganeshpuri, Maharashtra, India. [2]

Criticism

  • Mr. Shitole has no essential teaching of his own. Every single philosophy he espouses is a cunning re-rendering of what is already there. Examples are his onion story vs. the Upanishadic banyan seed analogy, as well as his catchy "earth peace through self peace" slogan, which is nothing but a cheap rehash of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's, "The consciousness of the individual is the basic unit of the collective consciousness, and therefore the collective consciousness of a nation or the world can only be improved through improving individual consciousness."
  • Mr. Shitole is unable to produce any legitimate credential supporting any of his outlandish claims (siddha by birth, born in sahaj samadhi, being a [Guru], being a Nath, received Kriya Yoga directly from Mahavatar Babaji, mastership, etc.).

"Avoid Weasel Words", Wikipedia style

This ABOVE comments were removed from this article 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 published work 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 Hamsacharya dan 04:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My latest edit has removed the so-called "weasel" phrases. —Adityanath 16:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Nice edit. ---Baba Louis 18:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../y/o/g/Talk%7EYogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath_Archive_1_af32.html"