Talk:Mahavatar Babaji: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:22, 14 March 2006 editRelax ull be ok (talk \| contribs)1,198 editsm →Vote ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:09, 17 December 2024 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers37,775 edits rv test edits
(184 intermediate revisions by 74 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Skip to talk}}
	==Vote==
			{{Talk header}}
	* Do you think that ] is another name of ]?
			{{Indian English}}
	** '''No''' ---] 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=Start\|collapsed=y\|listas=Babaji, Mahavatar\|
	** '''NO''' ---] 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
			{{WikiProject India\|importance=mid\|tamilnadu=yes\|tamilnadu-importance=high\|assess-date=April 2015}}
	** '''NO''' ---] 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Hinduism\|importance=High\|phil=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Religion\|importance=Low\|NRM=yes\|NRMImp=Low}}
			{{WikiProject Biography}}
			{{WikiProject Saints\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Yoga\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Longevity\|importance=mid}}
			}}
			{{Image requested\|date=January 2016\|religious leaders}}
			{{archive box\|
			*]
			}}

			{{User:MiszaBot/config
	*Do you think that mention of ] and ] belongs in this article?
			\|maxarchivesize = 80K
	** '''Maybe''' ---] 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
			\|counter = 2
	** '''Qualified, see comment below''' ---] 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
			\|algo = old(90d)
	** '''NO''' ---] 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
			\|archive = Talk:Mahavatar Babaji/Archive %(counter)d
			}}

			== External links modified ==
	*Do you think ]'s opinion on ] is important enough to include a quote?
	** '''No''' ---] 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
	** '''NO''' ---] 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
	** '''NO''' ---] 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	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/WP:NPOVUW#Undue_weight

			I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	] 15:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Priyananath
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024180614/http://www.spaciousplanet.com/world/guide/who-are-all-those-people-in-sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band to http://www.spaciousplanet.com/world/guide/who-are-all-those-people-in-sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band

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

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:] 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
	::Lighten up, dude. ] 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

			== Birth place ==
	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.

			We do not think birth place of Mahavatar Babaji was Tamilnadu. It my be ,may not be. No such thing was mentioned in Auto Biography of a Yogi.
	] 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath
			Later some Tamilians forcibly make people assume that Babji was born in Tamilnadu so and so. Because there is no mention of any place in Auto biography of a yogi, we can not take Tamilnadu as birth place of Babaji for granted. (On the other hand Tamilnadu as well as other states/regions of India have equal weightage of being birth place of Mahavatar Babaji).So I am not playing any regional biasedness card here.

			First and foremost KRIYA tradition is of Shyamacharan,Yukteshwar,Yogananada, Pranavananda,Panchanana trdition.we rely on their facts. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	==Purple Prose or, What's wrong with this paragraph?==

			== Disciple Lineages? ==
	Anyone objective care to comment?

			Whose connected to whom?
	:In light of the claims about Mahavatar Babaji that have come about after the publication of Yogananda's landmark exposition ], ], believed '''by his disciples and devotees to be a modern Himalayan ] ] 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 <strike>lofty<strike> being's origins and essence. His <strike>unique</strike> perspective <strike>is readily available</strike> ''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.'''
			Someone must know about the lineages from the original Mahavatar Babaji.

			Anyone heard of:
	* Is this article about Mahavatar Babaji or this Yogiraj fellow?
			Paramahamsa Hariharananda,
	**Babaji, I thought. I've bolded the non pertinent material above... ]
			Santata Gamana..others
			???

			] (])Ted] (]) ] (]) 12:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
	* 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. ]

	* Since the book isn't being quoted, can't it just be listed as a reference?
	**That's where I'd look for references. ]

	* 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. ]

	---] 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. ] 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. ---] 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. ---] 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. ] 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: <strike>Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis</strike>, ] has written <strike>that in his estimation,</strike> about ] and his belief that (he/she/it) is one and the same as ], ], and ] <strike>are one and the same being - a pure manifestation of God, whom he calls "Nameless One" and "Eternal Now".</strike> Of his experiences <strike>of this Being (reprinted from Wings to Freedom):</strike> 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.''
	] 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. ---] 07:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

	Oh, and don't pretend you are somebody else when you use your IP. ---] 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. ] 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? ---] 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 ] is already perfect without the inclusion of Mr. Shitole's personal propaganda, the same is true with the ] and ] 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.

	::] 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 ] and his "neuroscientist":) bliss bunny.

	] 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. ]'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.

	] 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) ] meaning King of Yogis, Nath Preceptor and Nath Adept was not bestowed upon him by his ] or a person in authority, he made it up himself.

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

	] 00:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

	:Please note that NoToFrauds has been labeled a vandal by other Wikipedians ]

	:I believe that there should be a separate page for "]" or whatever the precise name that YGS uses. Let that page make whatever claims it likes and link to ]. Babaji is not my tradition, but I have my doubts about YGS's ] qualifications..and that ''is'' my tradition. If he isn't legit, it would be better (for him) to stay off Misplaced Pages as all these doubts will be documented... His follower may not be doing him a favor... –] 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.] 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 ] = ] 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 ] = ] equation. I also don't think ] = the Immortal ] - according to ], ]'s tomb is at Nath Mandir near Ganeshpuri. The immortal don't usually have tombs :-) –] 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'' ] is not part of the Nath tradition. :-) –] 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 ...<small>personal attack removed</font>...

	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 ] 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. :-) —] 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. ] 05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

	:Great, Dan. You're the expert. Write an article. Where it belongs: ]. —] 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. —] 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. ] 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

	:I haven't removed anything either. I've moved it to the right place. An article about ]. In case you haven't noticed. every page on Misplaced Pages 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 ] and preferably no longer than that paragraph. Make of it what you will and put the rest on ]. 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. —] 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. ] 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. —] 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 Misplaced Pages 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, ]. 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. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, ] or an advertising venue. I'm about to bring your ] 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. —] 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. —] 19:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

	:Another indicator of how minority a view it is: there are a total of containing the term "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" compared with 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. —] 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

	] 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. · ]<sup>]</sup>/<small>]</small> 22:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)"

	] 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.

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

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

	== 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 Misplaced Pages about this Being.
	] 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.

	] 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.] 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.

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


	----

	="Avoid Weasel Words", Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages is not a place for expressing your opinions or for original research."

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

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

	== Discussion moved here from ] ==

	==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 ] and ] 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 ] 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 ] then we may have an article about them. Unfounded claims, simple advertising or ] 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, --] 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. ] 20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

	::::Dan Kogan, ...<small>''personal attack removed''</font>..., I never made any "huge revision" with the ] 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 ] and ] 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...<small>''personal attack removed''</font>... {{unsigned\|NoToFrauds}}
	:::::The policies of ] and ] are non-negotiable. --] 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 ] 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:

	#Teacher X taught Y at school Z from year A to year B. Comments?
	#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. --] 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 ] about how I think this should be resolved on the ] page (and by extension the ] 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,

	:::] 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

	::::my comments, referred to above, that I posted on the ]:
	::::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.

	::::] 03:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC):Priyanath

	:::::Thanks for your input. What you say certainly sounds reasonable enough. Looking at ]'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 ] if everyone is amenable. --] 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/WP:NPOVUW#Undue_weight --] 06:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

	Greetings ] 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 ] for treating these issues mentioned. That is encouraging. Regards, --] 06:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

	:Thank you ], for trying to help make sense of this from a truly neutral POV. --] 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. ] 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, ? 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 of engaging in this sort of juvenile prank! And, by the way, the IP that you used traces back to Virginia, not California.

	::] 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

	== Section in question ==

	"Another teacher, ], has described his ''alleged'' encounters with and transformation by a being he names ], whom he identifies with both ] and Mahavatar Babaji. This ''opinion, however, is solely his own and'' is not shared by other ]s or by kriyabans from the lineage of ]."

	: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 ]s or by kriyabans from the lineage of ]''. Also, if our article on the teacher is titled ], 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? --] 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 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', ], a modern Himalayan ] Guru, has claimed to have had personal experiences of Mahavatar Babaji. He believes that ], ], ], and ] 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. 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:
	:* by
	] 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 <i>using every trick in the book</i>, 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.

	] 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. --] 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. --] 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, <span style="background-color: yellow;">]</span>, ''a modern Himalayan ] Guru,'' <span style="background-color: yellow;">has claimed to have had personal experiences of Mahavatar Babaji. He teaches that ], ], ], and ] are the same being</span> - 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. 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? --] 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. --] 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 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. ] 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.

	::] 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 Misplaced Pages was meant for - discussing Babaji. ] 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!"'' ] 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.

	::] 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. --] 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! --] 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 ] page. ] 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.

Latest revision as of 02:09, 17 December 2024

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mahavatar Babaji article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

India: Tamil Nadu Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2015.

Hinduism: Philosophy High‑importance

	Hinduism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as High-importance).

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Saints Mid‑importance

	Saints portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christian liturgical calendars on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Yoga High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Longevity Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Longevity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the World's oldest people on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LongevityWikipedia:WikiProject LongevityTemplate:WikiProject LongevityLongevity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Mahavatar Babaji be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111024180614/http://www.spaciousplanet.com/world/guide/who-are-all-those-people-in-sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band to http://www.spaciousplanet.com/world/guide/who-are-all-those-people-in-sgt-peppers-lonely-hearts-club-band

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Birth place

We do not think birth place of Mahavatar Babaji was Tamilnadu. It my be ,may not be. No such thing was mentioned in Auto Biography of a Yogi. Later some Tamilians forcibly make people assume that Babji was born in Tamilnadu so and so. Because there is no mention of any place in Auto biography of a yogi, we can not take Tamilnadu as birth place of Babaji for granted. (On the other hand Tamilnadu as well as other states/regions of India have equal weightage of being birth place of Mahavatar Babaji).So I am not playing any regional biasedness card here.

First and foremost KRIYA tradition is of Shyamacharan,Yukteshwar,Yogananada, Pranavananda,Panchanana trdition.we rely on their facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:4D9D:517C:71D2:3CE5:F063:53A3 (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Disciple Lineages?

Whose connected to whom? Someone must know about the lineages from the original Mahavatar Babaji.

Anyone heard of: Paramahamsa Hariharananda, Santata Gamana..others ???

2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:F9FB:7822:6AEA:A659 (talk)Ted2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:F9FB:7822:6AEA:A659 (talk) 2607:FEA8:4A2:4100:F9FB:7822:6AEA:A659 (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Categories: