• Is this article about Mahavatar Babaji or this Yogiraj fellow?
  • Babaji, I thought. I've bolded the non pertinent material above... Chai Walla

• What's with "lofty?"
  • It's unnecessary. Being doesn't need to be capitalized either. And needs an apostrophe. The whole thing is rather awkward. Chai Walla

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

• Any other comments?
  • Doesn't need to say so much about Yogiraj. Doesn't he have an article of his own? Needs to say more about Yogiraj's ideas and views about Babaji. What makes his views any different from the preceding fellows? Sounds like more of the same-old, same-old, to me. So far, it doesn't seem unique at all - struck. Chai Walla

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed paragraph

I'd do this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dan Kogan is incapable of producing a NPOV presentation of Shitole anyway since he is emotionally attached to him like a puppy to its master. He (Dan) is one of Shitole's ordained "teachers" his name is listed in their web page complete with his picture.

The article on Mahavatar Babaji is already perfect without the inclusion of Mr. Shitole's personal propaganda, the same is true with the Kriya Yoga and Nath articles. Dan Kogan must prove that the article is incomplete without the inclusion of Mr. Shitole's fantasies.

The reason I was banned was because Dan went around crying like a child who lost her mother to various sysops about my benign edits in a Talk Page just for humor. We have been quite peaceful and content with the article and the few tweaks and enrichments everynow and then that is characteristic of WP until this nuisance cultist came along and introduce massive mounds of cult-promotion trash into a decent respectable article.

I recommend that Dan Kogan be banned as well as all the IPs he has been using to vandalize this already perfect article.

No To Frauds 12:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe that there should be a separate page for "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" or whatever the precise name that YGS uses. Let that page make whatever claims it likes and link to Mahavatar Babaji. Babaji is not my tradition, but I have my doubts about YGS's Nath qualifications..and that is my tradition. If he isn't legit, it would be better (for him) to stay off Misplaced Pages as all these doubts will be documented... His follower may not be doing him a favor... –Adityanath 02:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath, This is enlightening to hear that Mahavatar Babaji is not part of the Nath tradition. I agree, the YGS promoter(s) should put their ideas somewhere else.Priyanath 05:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

Well, I just said I had my doubts. I have a list of questions and it all depends on the answers to them. See my talk page.

Still it is clear that the Yogananda folks here don't agree with the Shiv-Goraksha Babaji = Mahavatar Babaji equation. That should be enough to say the former should have a separate page where that claim can be made and wikilinked to this article. As a Nath, I don't agree with the Adi Nath = Shiv-Goraksha Babaji equation. I also don't think Gorakshanath = the Immortal Mahavatar Babaji - according to Bhagawan Nityananda, Gorakshanath's tomb is at Nath Mandir near Ganeshpuri. The immortal don't usually have tombs :-) –Adityanath 05:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, misread that. I have my doubts about the authenticity of YGS's connection with the Nath tradition. I'm sure Mahavatar Babaji is not part of the Nath tradition. :-) –Adityanath 05:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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

NoToFraud's comments are without ANY verifiable references, and are therefore baseless slandering of a personage. He has been labeled a vandal by other Wikipedians

It should be noted that Adityanath has never claimed to be the world authority on the Nath tradition, and these comments are his POV. His certainty that Mahavatar Babaji is not Gorakshanath is also his POV, as are his other certainties. My POV is different. Yogiraj Gurunath is very verifiably a Nath - his guru is Raja Sundernath, who was the Mahant of the Goraknath temple in Gorakpur in 1924. Please see Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath Talk page for more information. Raja Sundernath is known throughout the region as an elevated saint, his picture can be found at numerous temples from Nainital to Badrinath, and he can still be found at Alkapuri, purportedly in his Sanjeevan body rooted in Svaroop Samadhi. He will tell you that his direct guru by personal initiation is Mahavatar Babaji. His claim is that Mahavatar Babaji is the same as Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji as well as Adinath, as well as Gorakshanath. This claim fits under the section on the Mahavatar Babaji page regarding Post-Yogananda Claims. ~Hamsacharya Dan

Adityanath, you've misread my words (once again). I've said specifically that you have never claimed to be the world authority on the Nath tradition. Do you claim to be so? If you do, then we can go from there. I'm not here to slander anyone, and if you read my words about you as biased or fueled by any emotion, then that is not correct - I am responding specifically to you CLAIM that you are CERTAIN that Mahavatar Babaji is not Gorakshanath. So, if you want to ask ME "how would you know", then I ask you, HOW WOULD YOU KNOW THIS? Is your knowledge based on experiences or book learning or both? Have you ever been to the Himalayas or is your knowledge based on reading others' words? Have you ever felt a kundalini transmission? Have you ever gotten a Ph.D. in religion and spirituality? Have you ever written books on spirituality? Have you ever read the classical texts of Sanatan Dharma? What specifically are your personal qualifications to make that claim with any veracity? Regardless, your POV claim is known as an opinion and not as fact - and that is what my message was meant to clarify.

Say, H.D. What makes you say I am not an expert and scholar of the tradition? How would you know? In any case, I do speak with some authority on the subject as I am an initiated Nath. Are you? My understanding is the YGS almost never gives his Nath initiation, so I rather doubt it. :-) —Adityanath 02:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding about Yogiraj is based on what? I'd like to know where you get your information, as nobody has so far put verifiable references regarding Yogiraj. Yogiraj has given his Nath initiation, and he has given it to me. Yogiraj's initiations are true initiations in which his Kundalini shakti is esoterically connected to the kundalini shakti of the disciple - in this way the kundalini of the disciple is awakened to the 1st layer of awakening, and the disciple becomes Dwij - "twice born" or "rebirthed by spiritual baptism" - the TRUE meaning of baptism. A true Nath initiation can be highly ritualized or it can be entirely without ritual - the lowest common denominator of any initiation, or diksha, is the awakening of the kundalini shakti. If this has not occurred, then no true initiation has taken place - there is just an exchange of information by ritual. The SatGuru thusly takes responsibility for the spiritual evolution of his disciple. This is my POV and my OPINION, which is based on Sanatan Dharma. Hamsacharya dan 05:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Great, Dan. You're the expert. Write an article. Where it belongs: Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Temp. —Adityanath 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It belongs where I put it Adityanath - available to all who are interested in Kriya Yoga, Mahavatar Babaji, the Nath Sampradaya, and Meditation. I wont state the information that I add as fact, nor will I overburden pages with long text, and I will make sure that it includes a POV disclaimer, as you've noted in your original comments to me - which I appreciated. The biased attacks are unnecesssary. If you don't like me because I've hurt your ego by saying that you've never claimed to be an expert, then so be it.

No it doesn't. That's what Wikilinks are for. That's what all the other editors here are trying to tell you. Duh. —Adityanath 06:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about????? How is your inclusion of writings by your Guru Mahendranath on the NATH page any different??? I have never removed them, but have only added to the page with my POV information. ALL information is POV information unless an independant AUDIT is made. Hamsacharya dan 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything either. I've moved it to the right place. An article about Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. In case you haven't noticed. every page on 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 Haidakhan Babaji and preferably no longer than that paragraph. Make of it what you will and put the rest on Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. Or revert again and risk getting banned for not working out a compromise with the other editors of this article, who are tired of arguing with you. My turn. I agree with them. —Adityanath 06:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

God didn't write the article in the first place Adityanath - someone with a POV did. Thus the structure of the article is open to interpretation. There have been just as many people reverting back to my edits as people altering my edits. Nevertheless, I will comply with keeping one paragraph in here. Hamsacharya dan 06:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean comply again. It seems you already had come to an agreement with the other editors about this before, but simply waited a few days to put your long over-prominent and out of chronological order paragraph containing promotional language back into the article. I was trying to help you and advise you how to get along on WP, but if you keep up this sort of stuff, I will join those who oppose you as they seem to have plenty of justification for doing so. —Adityanath 07:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you've already made up your mind Aditya...PLUS, the agreement I made was adhered to (with Priyanath), so ONCE AGAIN, you accusation is FALSE. It's NoToFrauds who has decided to rid any trace of Gurunath on wikipedia, and I have made edits to revert that action. - H. D.

Sounds like you have no idea how 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, you don't own your words. Remember what it says below the edit box: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." You agreed to allow others to modify your work. So let them.

Now to the problem. You paragraph reads like a promotion pamphlet. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or an advertising venue. I'm about to bring your multiple reverts to the attention of the admins. So please start learning to play well with others. This talk page is proof that you do not easily accept the opinions of other editors or compromise well. I've been trying to help you learn how to get your information onto WP without excessive dispute. Part of that is to put the BULK of information about a subject into an article of the same name, rather than trying to PROMOTE the subject in other articles. Do I have to get the admins involved for you to take a good look at yourself from a neutral point of view? You and your teachers pov is a minority pov with respect to a number of subjects. You are not going to get to take up major space in articles where your viewpoint is in the minority. People have pointed out to you the guidelines on this already. I don't understand why you keep trying to insert your promotional material. —Adityanath 12:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Your threats don't scare me Adityanath - you do what you have to do. My edits are not shameless self promotion. I took your prior suggestion regarding including a POV addendum to comments, and the information I've added to these listings are entirely valid. You don't have any authority to make the claim that my POV is a minority POV, nor do you have any data supporting that claim. - H.D.

Not threats, swami, just letting you know how WP works. As to the minority view, that's easy. Yogananda's book came out in 1946 and has been continuously in print since then. YGS's first book appears to have come out in 2001. On Amazon.com, there are multiple editions of Autobiography of a Yogi, and the top selling one is ranked #5,110 on Amazon's list of top sellers. YGS's top seller is Wings of Freedom and is ranked at #439,408. It's an objective fact that Yogananda is more than 85 times more popular than YGS. So logically YGS should get about 1/85th (1.2%) of the space in this article. We're being generous. —Adityanath 19:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another indicator of how minority a view it is: there are a total of 52 web pages according to Google containing the term "Shiv-Goraksha Babaji" compared with 16,200 pages containing the phrase "Mahavatar Babaji." WP does take these sorts of things into account if they have to arbitrate a dispute. This result says that only 0.3% of all pages on Mahavatar Babaji mention Shiv-Goraksha Babaji. That's flat earth territory. —Adityanath 19:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

By adding large volumes of content to this page for the sole purpose of promoting your book and teacher, you're using Wiki as a promotional site. More than half of this page is your promotional material, even though your guru lineage is just one of several that can be legitimately included here. While appropriate to mention the different Babaji teachers in context, your continued spamming of this page goes against the spirit of 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.

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

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

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

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

Explanation of recent back and forth edits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Hamsacharya dan 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

response

Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Avoid Weasel Words", 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

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