Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Sockpuppeting Policy Reminder 2 Deletion 3 Criticism 4 Restored ongoing discussion on parampara from archive 5 Missing information 6 Yogananda Reference

Sockpuppeting Policy Reminder

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

Deletion

I'm thinking about listing this article for deletion. Since it appears to be a vanity article derived solely from an autobiography, the author of the article is a follower/admirer of the subject, will not allow other objective views of the subject, and the subject is non-notable. See WP:VAIN. ---Baba Louis 04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Comments?

I support you 100%

-- Troy 15:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

• Mr. Shitole is seen to be unoriginal in his teachings. His philosophy he espouses is seen to be a cunning re-rendering of existant philosophy. Examples are his onion story vs. the Upanishadic banyan seed analogy, as well as his catchy "earth peace through self peace" slogan, which is very similar to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's, "The consciousness of the individual is the basic unit of the collective consciousness, and therefore the collective consciousness of a nation or the world can only be improved through improving individual consciousness."
• Mr. Shitole has yet to produce widely accepted evidence supporting his claims (siddha by birth, born in sahaj samadhi, being a [Guru], being a Nath, received Kriya Yoga directly from Mahavatar Babaji, mastership, etc.).

It is of course appropriate to have a section for criticism of this (or any encyclopedic) man. It is also appropriate to remove that criticism when it is unsourced. Does anyone have some citations, or other external evidence of criticism of the articles subject? If so I'm sure it can be included. Sam Spade 10:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam - this sort of criticism doesn't make any sense at all - it doesn't even pass "common sense" filters, besides being unsourced. Vedic philosophy has been around for thousands upon thousands of years - there is absolutely nothing new. Everything is old wine in new bottles. Every spiritual teacher for the last 8000 years has promulgated world peace and self peace. It can also be said that Mahesh's quote is just a rehash of his predecessors or Carl Jung's theory of collective consciousness. This sort of criticism is laughable. Regarding the second claim - nobody can verify anybody else's personal experiences ever. If you write an autobiography, and if you only wrote about the instances of your life that could be verified, it would be a thin and boring biography. His disciples and devotees could relay countless stories that would tend to bolster his claims - he has written about Babaji with a breadth and depth and profundity like nobody else in the world ever before. It is common sense, in my opinion, to keep this information. If the opposing claimants wish to discredit him, then the burden of verifiable proof should be on them. Your comments are requested. By the way, these criticisms are already printed in this section, just above this "weasel phrases" warning. Hamsacharya dan 15:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The editor who added this section has been perma-banned from WP. AFAIK, this guru is too recent to be included in any guru critique-type efforts. I think any criticism or questions will have to be posed as a comparison between how things are usually done, which can be documented, and how YGS's approach differs from convention. For example, we have yet to have a clear statement on who initiated him as a Nath. Without diksha, one cannot become a member of a sampradaya. So conflicts can certainly be documented while I don't think User:NoToFrauds criticism section has any documentable support...yet. —Adityanath 16:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me make 2 things clear : I personally am a Perennial Philosopher, and respect tradition and repetition of obvious wisdom as much as anybody.

That said, if some verifiable critic (i.e. not a wiki editor) can be cited criticizing the article subject for any reason no matter how ridiculous (see here, where I restore some particularly foolish criticism of a fitness guru) it should be included. Excessive space should not be devoted to minority views, but verifiable criticism (regardless of its insight or merit) should be included if possible. To be honest I went looking for some, but couldn't find any dirt on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath yet... ;) Sam Spade 15:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, thanks for joining in here. I really feel that mediation here is going to be important, and have been trying to get mediation for a while now. I understand that some editors have major issues with what they call "outlandish claims" in this article, and that is the reason that they've included conflicting views - to balance the "outlandish claims". I have issues with these conflicting views, because I don't feel they represent anybody's opinions except for the editors that wrote them, and they also constitute original research. I see two possible solutions here - 1. is that we consider removing the outlandish claims along with the conflicting views together - so that there is no inflammatory material for either party, or 2. that we deal with each claim individually and keep or remove it based on it's own merit. Hamsacharya dan 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Restored ongoing discussion on parampara from archive

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

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

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

An article on Wikipedia itself has been referenced. Gurus are made by their gurus; they are not self-made. This is well known enough to have other references on WP as well. You seem to be rather uneducated in the tradition. Please do not revert based on the limitations of your own knowledge. ---Baba Louis 06:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the Gita as well as Vasishta Yoga (among others that I've come across, but don't recall the reference to), The only SatGuru is God (the Paramatma - or Shiva) - who was never initiated by anyone. A human is a SatGuru when he can say "Me and my father are One" - this is in a state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi (also known as Asamprajnata Samadhi, or Nirvana). I've never heard or read anywhere before that a SatGuru becomes such when his Guru dies. Where did you get that from? There is a definite difference between a Guru and a SatGuru. One of the tests of a SatGuru is whether he or she can transmit shaktipat. Hamsacharya dan 16:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, no one is arguing about this anymore. I modified the point to be specifically about whether he has a Nath diksha-guru. Even a Sat Guru must follow the formalities if they wish to claim a specific lineage. I agree with you that the original statement was too broad to be true. The current statement is much narrower. —Adityanath 16:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal Aditya: In this particular case, assuming Raja Sundernath initiated YGS into the Nath Sampradaya, Raja Sundernath is a jivanmukta - he has no karma, and is thus residing in his body temple through pure will - that's what Gurunath means by his "Sanjeevan Body" - Sanjeevan Yoga is the Yoga of Will. He can leave his body at any time, but he chooses to stay. He initiated Gurunath, and Gurunath's function in society as an initiatory SatGuru is at the behest of his Guru and his ParamGuru - Babaji. Thus, it makes no difference if his Guru is alive or dead - his Guru is beyond death. The same thing was happening with Matyendranath and Gorakshanath - they were both initiating disciples while their masters were alive - one's master is Shiva and the other's master is Matyendranath. In the same vein, Lahiri Mahasaya was initiating at the behest of his direct Guru Babaji - who was and is still alive. Same with Sri Yukteswar, and Yogananda. These precendents are in direct contradiction to you

conflicting view. Hamsacharya dan 02:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your assumption about Raja Sundernath is completely

unacceptable. According to G.W. Briggs, "Sundernathji, who was head of the

[Gorakhpur] monastery in 1924, died without naming a successor." See article

for complete reference. Whoever YGS may have encountered in the Himalayas, we

can be sure it was not Sundernath. Perhaps some yogi was pulling his leg? ---Baba Louis 21:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I don't and won't accept this excuse for an explanation. It is fantasy hand-waving. YGS either was initiated by a living verifiable Nath diksha-guru or he wasn't. Don't waste your effort on me. I don't buy that immortal Babaji/Goraksha crap. The Nath Sampradaya is an initiated tradition. No initiator, not a Nath. The point is a valid one and has to stay in the article until proof is supplied in the form of details rather than hand-waving. Don't bother to keep waving your hands, it makes you look ridiculous. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. And if you put it in, you have to accept that it is contested by people who take a more practical and realistic view of things. And that there's a conflict between outlandish claims and the traditional way someone becomes and is recognized as a Nath is a fact that does belong in the article. —Adityanath 03:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath - you call it handwaving, but nothing could be more explicit. The entire modern, historically sourced, Kriya yoga lineage opposes your claim - every single Kriya guru was alive when his disciple started giving diksha. Yogananda was in America for 16 years before his Guru died, and had been giving initiations for many years prior to coming to America. Sri Yukteswar started initiating 11 years after Lahiri Mahasaya gave him diksha. Lahiri Mahasaya started giving diksha immediately after his meeting with Babaji, when he was about 30 years old. Simple. Raja Sundernath is clearly a nath, due to his history as Mahant. What else do you want from me? Hamsacharya dan 03:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Kriya Yoga, Dan. I'm talking about the Nath Sampradaya, a lineage of which I am a member and you are not. And switching topics like that is part of your handwaving. Except for YGS and his stories, the Naths and Kriya Yoga have nothing to do with each other and never have. That's also part of the hand waving. All claims about the Nath must be measured against the academic literature about the Naths. Kriya yoga is something altogther different and unrelated. If you wish to argue this, please give academic references. Otherwise, keep the traditions seperate and judge each by its own criteria. —Adityanath 05:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

They're not separate man - Shiva-Shakti is a tantric Nath technique. It is also the fundamental pranayam given in Kriya Yoga diksha. You're seeing a difference where there is none. Raja Sundernath's pictures are all over the ashrams in the Himalayas and he's been written about in several books, which I've cited. I'm sorry, but you're going to be hard-pressed to find any Himalayan yogis' works published by University Presses - I guess they're not pedantic enough for them. I understand that you want specific references, and I have referred you to the Shiva Purana, the Guru Gita, and the Bhagavad Gita. Furthermore, regarding Hamsa Yoga, I've also added references to the Gheranda Samhita and the Vigyan Bhairava. Not to be rude, but by the same token, I have asked you 3 times for references from you about where does it specifically say that one cannot give diksha unless one's guru has passed away? You are accusing me of dodging your questions, but despite the numerous references I've pointed out, I

haven't gotten a straight answer from you yet! And you're acting frustrated with me - on what grounds? This article is about Yogiraj Gurunath and his beliefs - we'll make every effort to source them, and we'll happily remove "outlandish" claims, but it's fundamentally about him. Unless you start backing up your own claims, I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue. Hamsacharya dan 07:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I already have backed up my observations, Dan. You haven't proved that the Naths have anything to do with Kriya Yoga. You haven't given a credible initiator for YGS and you haven't shown that he received either parampara or dispensation from his initiator to make him a Nath Guru. I have no opinion on his other Guru claims. Someone can be a Guru in general simply because he has students who think he is. But to claim to be a member of the Nath Sampradaya requires some more details. And there are plenty of reference works on the Naths, some of which I've mentioned. None of mine so much as mention either Kriya Yoga or Babaji in the text, index or footnotes. Your "reasoning" is simply a chain of loose associations, rather like Qabalistic reasoning. It constitutes nothing stronger than opinion. It too weak to even call "original research," and I'll think you'll find that you can't find a reliable academic source which even shows that other people hold the same opinions, much less present it as

established fact. Wikipedia policy is that the more outlandish the claim, the better the reference needed. If you want to make outlandish claims, you'll need an academic reference. That's WP policy, not mine. Personally, I want to see you solidly establish this article by providing the hard fact. I assumed when I started discussing these matters with you that you actually had facts to back up your claims. Now I see that I was mistaken. —Adityanath 13:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also trying to figure out what part of parampara you fail to understand. I've pointed you to the guru-shishya tradition page as well. Do you understand the meaning of the word succession? There is always only one guru in each Nath sub-sect. All that guru's initiates are his shishyas or chelas. While the guru is alive, his shishyas defer to him. If anyone asks a shishya for initiation, they take them to the guru or get the guru's explicit permission or blessing to perform the initiation themselves. A shishya would not conceive of calling himself a guru until his guru has passed. When the guru passes, he chooses one of his shishya to become the lineage holder or new guru of the tradition. Are you telling me that you don't know this? How can you be qualified to write anything about the Naths if you don't know even this most basic fact of what parampara (succession) means? It means the same thing for the Naths as it means for Kings. The King is dead, long live the King.

—Adityanath 14:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

HD, I have to agree with Adityanath. What you are doing is like asking someone to give references for the use of the words element and molecule in a chemistry article. Simple wikilinks to those articles themselves should be sufficient. In this case, sampradaya and parampara are sufficiently defined by their articles as long as you don't argue about the meaning of the word succession. Do you have some other understanding of the word succession in this context? If so, please state clearly your understanding of its usage. Again, if you still think I'm a sockpuppet, please simply ignore my input. ---Baba Louis 17:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing information

There are several missing pieces of information that should be in this article. HD, as an official teacher of Hamsa Yoga Sangh, you should have answers for these:

• What year was Hamsa Yoga Sangh actually founded?
• When ond how did Sidhoji Rao Shitole become Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath?
  • If someone gave him this title/name, who, when, where and why?
  • If he took this title/name upon himself, state this and the (approximate) date when he began using it.
  • If any legendary/mythical beings such as Babaji or Raja Sundernath gave it to him, state this clearly and whether it was in the flesh or in a vision.
• When was he first recognized as a Sat Guru and by whom? Who was his first significant student?

I believe Hamsa Yoga Sangh was founded around 1997 and I can find no reference to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath dating from earlier than this either. Though perhaps he started with a small following in India prior to this? The history of his teaching career should include some dates:

• When did he first start teaching?
• When did his teaching begin to spread to common knowledge in India?
• When did Hamsa Yoga Sangh become an international concern?
• Is Hamsa Yoga Sangh a registered non-profit? If yes, in California only? or recognized by the IRS?

---Baba Louis 18:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Baba Louis - I think these questions are appropriate. I don't know the answers to all of them, but I will address them when I get the chance. Hopefully, some of the other long-time HamsaNathis will decide to partake in updating this article as well. At this point, I think it would be appropriate to remove the delete article wiki, don't you? Hamsacharya dan 21:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, removing the template will be done by an admin as a matter of process. The vote has to remain open for 5 days before the results are determined. Looks like that is tomorrow. So far it seems to be 8 - 2 to keep. You could address the latest delete vote by User:Alan Au by adding a section listing YGS's published books. ---Baba Louis 21:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yogananda Reference

Hi Adityanath, re: the attempted deletion of the Yogananda/Babaji/Krishna reference. I don't own the Gita interpretation by Yogananda, so I don't know if he states there that Babaji was Krishna in a previous life. But he definitely states it in the book I referenced on the Mahavatar Babaji page: Kriyananda, Swami: Conversations with Yogananda, page 347, Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2003. Until someone provides page number of the Gita book, it's not a reliable cite, in my opinion. — Priyanath 03:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Priyanath. I've substituted yours. Though I think hardly any cites on WP have page numbers :-( —Adityanath 03:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is bogus - I also own Conversations with Yogananda, and I've read this quote. Kriyananda is a secondary source - he could say anything in this book and claim that it's a quote. Yogananda never wrote this anywhere during his life, so this supposed evidence is on very shaky legs. This is akin to me writing a book about Gurunath posthumously and claiming that Gurunath said such and such 50 years ago when there is no record of his writing it anywhere else, despite having written copious amounts of material. One line of a quote that he might remember from 55 years ago is nothing close to being substantive, especially considering the monumental body of work of Yogananda's own personal writings. It's out like a bad habit - you gotta come up with something a heck of a lot better than this. Hamsacharya dan 16:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia permits secondary sources, Dan. After all, even Wings to Freedom is a secondary source. You know YGS didn't write it, but rather that it was ghostwritten by someone who took notes at his lectures and dictation from him, right? —Adityanath 17:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. He wrote it himself - most of it by hand. Yet ANOTHER claim you're making out of the blue. Where do you get this stuff? Have you ever read Wings to Freedom, or even looked at it before? Even flipped through it once? Ever?? Where out of the blue did you get the idea that YGS only rarely gives nath initiation? That has never been discussed anywhere, and yet I'm seeing you writing these things. Don't you see how I can get frustrated by this? I have no problem with other editors editing this article, but not when the statements made are not factual, and utterly baseless. Sam Spade Please comment! We need mediation here. Hamsacharya dan 01:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Dan, there's a mediator here. You really ought not to go back to your old behavior of simply removing things you don't agree with. You'll get blocked again. You need to discuss on the talk page first. The mediator has said that criticism should not be removed from the article. It's not original research, it is simply a comparison between two known and documented points of view. —Adityanath 17:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not MY behavior - you're twisting words and spinning things as usual to vilify me as usual. This is all of our behavior - why did you remove the section on Gurunath in the Nath article just a couple days ago? That's vandalism by your own definition! I hate to say it, but that's pure unadulterated hypocrisy unless you put it back in. I said nothing when you took that section out, but after your comments here, this is getting to be ridiculous. You want everything your way - not the Wikipedia way. As far as mediation, these additions should be agreed upon by the mediator FIRST, before being added to the article - that's why I moved them over here. And I wasn't blocked for removing content, I was blocked for a 3RR violation that Baba Louis reported, for an edit war, which he and Chai Walla were participating in also, which I DIDN'T REPORT because YOU asked me not to, not to mention that "confirmed" sockpuppeting which I also removed because you asked me to. I've been so utterly civil the last week and have barely made any edits in a spirit of discussion. Why do you get to add whatever you want, but I can't delete what I want? It's not vandalism if the content doesn't belong there - it should be properly sourced. By the way, none of these conflicting views were properly sourced when they were first added. Your conflicting view #1 still has absolutely no source. Conflicting view #2 - the quote from Kriyananda's book can be sourced, but you can't say that just because Yogananda didn't write about it, then that counts as a conflicting view - that doesn't make any sense at all and tantamount to going to the Santa Claus article and writing - "Yogananda never wrote that Santa Claus doesn't exist, therefore he does exist". Conflicting view #3 - also has no source whatsoever - and common sense doesn't work here since souls take rebirth in Hinduism - Just like Kriyananda's claim that Babaji was reborn as Krishna. You are contradicting yourself by saying that he does take rebirth as Krishna, but that he can't be reborn as others because his mortal remains are somewhere according to someone. I honestly don't know why you want this stuff in this article but to add dirt that doesn't exist. Sam Spade - if you're mediating this article - please read this and comment. This is just unbelievable... Hamsacharya dan 01:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, that is not the same at all. In the Nath article, you admitted that you had no facts to verify that YGS is a Nath Guru. A paragraph that "alleges" that he is a Nath and "purports" that he is a Nath Guru does not belong in a factual article. Keep it in this one, and even then, don't put it in unless you want it questioned. Only verified Nath Gurus belong in the Nath article. What's your hurry? It's better for both you and your Guru not to have that kind of questionable paragraph written about them. Have patience and wait until you can get the facts. It'll be better for everybody. Stop promoting. Your paragraph read like something from a PR release. That's what annoys the hell out of me. Quit it. WP is not here to be your personal soapbox. How many times have I said this. Try listening for a change. —Adityanath 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Dan, you were blocked for removing the conflicting views section of this article five times in a matter of hours. So get off your high horse. You removed a part of it again today. Leave it alone. It is cited with valid references. It doesn't matter whether you like it or not. —Adityanath 03:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And finally, there is no conflict in my views. And I didn't write the conflicting views section in the first place, I simply refined it and removed what you called "weasel words." I don't believe Babaji and Goraksha are the same, and I don't believe YGS's Babaji is the same as Yogananda's Babaji. So there is no conflict for me to believe that Yogananda's Babaji is Krishna and that Gorakhsha, an historical person, is dead and buried. Deal with it. Stop assuming that only your point of view makes sense. You are being extremely egocentric about it all. —Adityanath 03:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Dan, secondary sources are not 'bogus'. They are....secondary sources. Please note also that my original statement reads 'Yogananda said....', not 'Yogananda wrote.....'. That's also why I cited that source on the Babaji page, so people could see the source and make up their own mind. It's also why I put multiple sources there. Since this issue seems controversial, at least with you, I'll work on finding, and adding, more sources for that information. I hope to be able to say, with citation, that 'Yogananda wrote....'. But even the current sources and cites support the statement.

Some friendly advice on editing: please log in before you edit. Seeing your edits, showing only an IP address, makes it look like you're trying to pretend to be another editor. I don't believe that you intended to do that. — Priyanath 23:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, please note that I added an additional secondary source by another disciple of Yogananda, Durga Mata, who also heard Yogananda say that Babaji is Krishna. I hope to add more sources for this, as I find them. — Priyanath 03:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I also hope to be citing a reference from Lahiri Mahasaya's diaries, in which he writes that Babaji is Lord Krishna. I'm working on getting a reliable cite and page number on this. All this is to say that I think that it doesn't help your cause to be pushing this too hard. — Priyanath 04:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody! Alot of things are going on here all at once. First and foremost I want to ask everyone to be more friendly. Some of the things that have happened recently, and statements made regarding them have been hurtful. Secondly, I'm pretty sure Hamsacharya dan is not a vandal. Third, he has a point about this citation. The article should not say "the fact that Yogananda said that Mahavatar Babaji was Krishna in a former lifetime". Instead it should say "According to Kriyananda, Yogananda said that Mahavatar Babaji was Krishna in a former lifetime". Do you see the difference? I think we can agree that it is possible for secondary sources to be wrong. I hope we can also agree that they should be included, as well as clarified for what they are. If anyone has any confusion about this, Wikipedia:Reliable sources might help. Please excuse me if I misunderstood anything, Sam Spade 10:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sam Spade, Thank you for the clarification. I think the latest version now far exceeds commonly used Wikipedia standards, by citing multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Since these issues are controversial and subjective, I hope the rest of the article will be held to the same high standard. — Priyanath 17:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing my concerns (which you did quite nicely). I still don't understand why "The claim that Shiv-Goraksha Babaji is the same as Mahavatar Babaji appears to conflict with the fact that Yogananda stated that Mahavatar Babaji was Krishna in a former lifetime (according to two close disciples of Yogananda: Swami Kriyananda[2] and Sri Durga Mata[3]), often prayed out loud to "Babaji-Krishna,"[4] and never wrote that Mahavatar Babaji was associated with Shiva or with the Nath tradition. (See works of Paramahansa Yogananda.)"

what is the apparent conflict and why? Sam Spade 21:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1. For Babaji to come from Krishna (who is from Vishnu) AND Shiva are a contradiction in most people's eyes, since Vishnu and Shiva are essentially two entirely different primary sources of divine incarnations.

Not according to Nityananda (who was referenced by Baba Louis in contradicting claim #3), who says in that same reference, "There were nine main Naths (Janma Siddhas) who manifested on this Earth as Avatars (born God-realized) to reinstate Dharma and to be Acharyas to those disciples seeking Moksha (Liberation). These Avatars were reincarnations of Lord Vishnu, Shiva's manifestation known as Narayana." Gurunath also claims that Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji is the collective consciousness of the 9 Naths. Nityananda is a very highly regarded modern master. You see, Sam, there are many misconceptions and seeming contradictions about Hinduism due to its complexity, and it has been said by many enlightened masters that words don't do justice to the experiences. Just as the bible seems to contradict itself all the time, and yet the fundamentals are the exact same. The masters never see any contradictions, it's only the followers that take things literally and break everything down to little puzzle pieces that they can never put back together again. Hamsacharya dan 09:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The only way you could lump them all together is to just say that we're all incarnations of everyone else, like, whatever. Also, if Babaji was an incarnation of Shiva and not Krishna, then Yogananda or others from his line would have surely stated such, which they never did. All this is convincing evidence that these are two different 'Babajis' that are being discussed here. (fyi, 'babaji' is a common name in India meaning 'revered father', so it's understandable why there would be so much confusion).

In Hinduism you can have many physical bodies and yet be the same being. Also, you can have many physical bodies at the same time and yet be the same being - In Conversations with Yogananda, Kriyananda also claims that Yogananda, after stumbling while walking, said that he sometimes had trouble controlling so many bodies at the same time. Shiva Bala Yogi, another highly regarded modern master, was also recorded as saying that masters have many bodies at the same time. Hamsacharya dan 09:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, nobody argues with this. But you have to make it explicit. You can't talk out of both side of your mouth and say someone is immortal and then later say that oh, that was a different incarnation in a different body. Those statement oppose each other. Immortality of the soul and reincarnation are taken as a given in Hinduism. Don't abuse this by implying physical immortality when you mean reincarnation. Make it clear precisely what your claim is. Is Sundarnath 700 years old in the same physical body? If not, your are misusing the word immortality. If you mean he is the reincarnation of Mahant Sundernath, then his body couldn't be 700 years old, now could it? Be explicit. —Adityanath 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Shiv-Goraksha or Goraknath was alive at the same time as Babaji apparently was/is, which is a huge contradiction in itself, unless we go back to saying that they are all incarnations of everyone else all at the same time, like, whatever....

See above Hamsacharya dan 09:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, Dan's claims are at odds with two very long-time and highly respected traditions - the Nath tradition

The nath proponents have yet to cite a single source for their claims that ACTUALLY contradict Gurunath's claims about Babaji in light of the complexity of Hinduism referred to above. They have claimed that Sundernath died without a successor, but there are two books present today written by actual yogis from that region, not pedants from the west, not to mention dozens of temples throughout India who claim that Sundernath is alive today. I've cited numerous ancient sources and modern sources that bolster my claims. In the Hamsa Yoga articles and here that discuss the fundamentals of the Nath sampradaya - not the least of which is the Kularnava Tantra, one of the most highly regarded Tantric treatises, which discusses the Shiva-Shakti tradition and the meaning of a true master (SatGuru), as well as the HamSa tradition. The others cite modern sources written by westerners or no source at all- how about showing some respect for these ancient traditions and citing sources that are highly respected, ancient, and undisputed? Hamsacharya dan 09:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, WP prefers academic sources. They take precedence over claims by yogis, especially one like Pilot Baba who has been caught red-handed faking stunts. It is also WP policy that outlandish claims require academic references. Just don't put them in and many of your problems go away. —Adityanath 15:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, another uncited remark. Who wrote that? Another "reliable academic source"? Pilot Baba has one of the most revered ashrams in the Nainital region - why don't you take up your claims with them. Hamsacharya dan 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to cite on a talk page, but since you ask:

" In 1992, Sanal Edamaruku exposed the godman Pilot Baba who claimed that he survived in meditation under water for five days without breathing. Pilot Baba's under-water feat attracted national and international attention. He constructed a huge swimming pool in a Delhi public park, climbed down in front of a crowd of 4000, ordered water to be pumped in and stayed there underwater for four days. That was at least the claim.

"But Edamaruku and his assistants exposed him. They found out that there was a special secret pipeline connection. Though water was pumped in, the tarpaulin-covered pool did not get wet inside, and the Baba had a comfortable time on its dry ground. Four years later, in 1996, he tried it again. This time he claimed to stay for four days buried under the earth. Edamaruku exposed him again in front of television cameras. This time he was sitting comfortably in an underground dug-up room." [1]

and the Mahavatar Babaji tradition taught by Lahiri Mahasaya and the Yogananda lines. I'm deeply familiar with the Lahiri Mahasaya tradition and believe YGS's statements to be either a fabrication or confusion. Adityanath feels the same about the extreme contradictions between the Nath tradition and YGS's claims.

I believe the burden of proof is on Dan and YGS, not on these two long-standing traditions. — Priyanath 21:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on anybody who makes a claim on wikipedia. Claims should have good sources. How good a source is, is highly subjective. I feel that sources that come from the land, people, and places in question, and the oldest sources, tend to be the best sources. Hamsacharya dan 09:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

However, WP defines academic sources as preferred. That is WP policy. You are on WP, not creating your own website, and you have to follow WP conventions. Outlandish claims require the most reputable academic sources or they should not be included. —Adityanath 15:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, the sources that I've cited far exceed WP conventions: they are multiple, referenced, reliable, and state exactly what the article says they state. The fact that some of them are from direct disciples of a great Master, but unfortunatey have white skin, and do not come from 'the land, people, and places' in question smacks of extreme prejudice of the worst kind. — Priyanath 16:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I feel that every source (and every person ;) is biased, and that the only fair way to make claims is to back them up w authoratative sources. I have some concerns about the claim being made. Who is to say that were not all incarnations of God (as I do), all specks of dust from the monad. Both Vishnu and Shiva are seen to be emanations of God by Smartists. On the same note, spiritual matters have no need to obey temporal laws, and so even if you are not a monist it is certainly possible to believe 2 living men could possess the same soul. What this all boils down to is : who is making these accusations? If they are authoratative and verifiable, I say they should be included. If they are not (say if they are from one of us) they shouldn't be in the article. Sam Spade 12:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is just not right, Sam. The unification of Hinduism is a convention which allows what are essentially three completely different streams of thought to coexist more or less harmoniously. Trimurti (Brahma as creator, Vishnu as preserver, Shiva as destroyer) is simply an icon of this cross-acceptance. In actuallity, the three streams are quite distinct in their history and conceptualisation of spirituality. Shaivites, for example, are primarily monotheistic, and consider Shiva to be creator, preserver and destroyer. Similarly with Vishnu and Krishna. Shiva and Krishna are not used interchangable in historical tradition and this is a fact. In fact, there is a demeaning Shaivite story about Vishnu: in this story he appears in the form of a woman and is pursued by Shiva who ends up impregnating him. Apparently, Vishnu bears Shiva's son and there is even a temple to their offspring. Similarly, Shiva is snubbed and not invited to Brahmanic weddings, because he always goes naked. Many images of Shiva and Kali and other Shaivite deities are naked; the Vaisnavites are very strict about clothing their images. The traditions arise from different social strata; some say the Shaivite tradition arises from the native Dravidian culture rather than the Vedic culture. In short, the difference between being an incarnation of Krishna or an incarnation of Shiva is deeply rooted in the tradition and equating, blending or confusing them is simply so rare as to be unheard of. —Adityanath 14:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath - I find it unbelievable, and absolutely hilarious that you would say this - you're the one that rewrote the Nath Sampradaya section to state that Dattatreya was the founder of the Nath tradition. Don't you know that Dattatreya is widely held to be an incarnation of the trimurti? In fact this is the first sentence of the Dattatreya article on wikipedia, which you apparently have been editing. You even quoted Mahendranath as saying, "Shri Dattatreya was a dropout of an earlier age than the period when Veda and Tantra merged to become one simple cult. It was men like Dattatreya who helped to make this possible. Three of his close disciples were kings, one an Asura and the other two both belonging to the warrior caste. Dattatreya himself was regarded as an avatar of Maheshwara (Shiva) but later was claimed by Vaishnavites as the avatar of Vishnu. Not such a sectarian claim as it appears; Hindus regard Shiva and Vishnu as the same or as manifestations of the Absolute taking form." So which is it Adityanath? Sectarian or Non-sectarian to call the trimurti the same and yet different? Hamsacharya dan 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure Dan, in a general sense that is true. But it doesn't mean that they switch horses mid-stream. When it comes down to specific sects, they are always either Shaivite or Vaishnavite. Also, there is a difference bewteen the historical Dattatreya who was a teacher, and the idealized Dattatreya who is worshipped with the image of trimurti. They have the same name, but are not necessarily refering to the same object. In fact, there have been several teachers in the Nath Sampradaya who have used the name Dattatreya, and none of them are the same as trimurti. —Adityanath 18:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, these are not 'accusations', this idea that Hindu tradition says that incarnations of Shiva and Vishnu are not the same. And I believe that the view being presented is not just 'our' bias, but by far the majority POV. But why not a disclaimer added, saying something like 'monists and smartists believe that all souls come from God and are the same, and therefore there can be many Mahavatar Babajis', or something like that? I believe the POV that Adityanath and I are presenting is so much a majority POV, that it almost goes without saying. But a response from the smartists, monists, and the 'all souls are God and therefore Babaji' camp, would be appropriate, if you think that it's enough of a minority POV to be there.

Another alternative, is to include just the original completely verified, citated, reliable, multiple references that show Yogananda and Lahiri Mahasaya said that Babaji is an incarnation of Krishna - and that they never said that he was an incarnation of Shiva, and let the reader make up their own mind about what that means. That gets our 'biased' opinion out of the way, and includes only Facts, verified and cited. Facts which are extremely significant to this article. — Priyanath 16:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I had tea with the immortal Babaji this morning. Nice fellow. I asked him about Gurunath and he said he'd never heard of him. Maybe I should write a book about the encounter ;-) —Adityanath 17:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)