Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Archive 4

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 Missing information 2 Mediator Fire Star finds article neutral and acceptable 3 Holy cow! 3.1 Mediator Sam Spade approves article 4 NPOV dispute 5 All editors 6 MESSAGE FROM YOGIRAJ GURUNATH AND HAMSA YOGA SANGH 7 Content Debate - post AFD 8 NPOV dispute redux 9 Poetry section 10 Quotations in general 11 Hmmm 12 Sundernath 13 NPOV redux - no one signed off on the removal of differing views section 14 3 revert rule warning 15 "Thanks for playing" 16 Sat Guru 17 Requested move 17.1 Survey 17.2 Discussion 18 Notes 19 Differences with traditional views 20 Protected 21 Hanuman Das' - discussion regarding rebuttal to differences with traditional views 22 Inappropriate Votes - proposed policy does not requre adherance. Vote is meaningless unless policy is set. 22.1 Inappropriate article structure 23 Refocusing Discussion 24 Wikipedia policy on criticism in biographies 24.1 Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors 24.2 Wikipedia is not a soapbox 25 NPOV

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)

Mediator Fire Star finds article neutral and acceptable

An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie. I am satisfied, IMO, that this is currently a decent Wikipedia article, because it doesn't insult any party or our intelligence with its wording as far as I can see. Others may have varying opinions, but I even found it interesting to read, actually. I have a few quibbles about the lack of indirect object pronouns (who where there should be whom), and too many repetitions of the word "claim" where a synonym would do but those aren't substantive to the discussions here. --Fire Star 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow!

The above is alot to read! You guys really don't seem to be getting along, and I'm not sure what to do. My guess (I havn't read all of the above, but I have skimmed it) is that you each have a legitimate point, and that the primary problem is that people are not respecting each other. Can we please slow down, and articulate the problem in a calm and respectful manner? As succinctly as possible please (have mercy!) Sam Spade 11:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy Cow is right! If you ever want to convince someone to NOT join one of these yoga/nath/kriya groups, just point them to this talk page. That will convince them. But the article itself is reading more and more neutrally - read that more closely instead, if you don't have the time and patience to read the discussions. All sides have had their say, it's referenced well, and as Fire Star said, "An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. An article is not neutral if, after reading it, you can tell where the author's sympathies lie. I am satisfied, IMO, that this is currently a decent Wikipedia article, because it doesn't insult any party or our intelligence with its wording as far as I can see. Others may have varying opinions, but I even found it interesting to read, actually. I have a few quibbles about the lack of indirect object pronouns (who where there should be whom), and too many repetitions of the word "claim" where a synonym would do but those aren't substantive to the discussions here."

There is some fine-tuning needed - but even then, you'll find people unhappy with it, Sam Spade. And we all know that the source of happiness if found by going within and doing your practices ;-) — Priyanath 16:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I feel that because of the highly volatile nature of this discussion, reliance on Wikipedia policy is of paramount importance so that the pertinent issues can be separated from those that are simply POV and inapplicable. To that end I have written as lucidly as possible commentary based as reliantly on wikipedia policy as possible. My case for original research of the conflicting views is summarized here (you will have to scroll to the bottom and start reading from "The original research policy says that..."): [1] The preceeding paragraph goes into more specific examples as does this diff (highlighted and succeeding PGs):[2]. Then Priyanath made a comment about precedent for "criticisms" in other biographies, for which my reply was: [3]. I feel that these specific arguments are very solidly layed out by wikipedia policy. And because they were not adhered to so far, this article is rife with nonsense - full of conflicting views of conflicting views of conflicting views - none of which have ever been directed at YGS as your own cursory examination had found [4]. - Hamsacharya dan 18:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dan, User:Fire Star gave suggestions to put all the facts in neutral language. I followed that advice and then had him verify that it was neutral after making another suggested change. He also said that "this is currently a decent Wikipedia article" which I assume includes a recognition that it doesn't violate the policies you keep bringing up. IMO, you keep flogging a dead horse. Give it up! —Adityanath 19:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if the current spread of conflicting views of conflicting views is not enough to convince that there is something wrong here, I can provide many many more references - several of which have already been referenced in the article and subsequently (and unduly) taken out by another editor despite use of his exact same references.

Dan, this is simply not true. I did not remove your points and references. I simply moved them to the Beliefs section, where they are quite intact. Have you bothered to read the article lately??? —Adityanath 19:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to religion - views can be many and disparate and yet be from reliable sources - that's why conflicting views should be reliable references addressed specifically to the person or spiritual figure that is being addressed, otherwise you can easily cite 100 other conflicting views of these conflicting views. Case in point: Adityanath's view of the Nath sampradaya is only one narrow definition - there are numerous references (ancient and modern) which demonstrate that the beliefs of the naths are much more elaborate and variegated than his chapter of his subsect believes. Hamsacharya dan 19:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

None of which you have actually been able to document from a reliable academic source. It is true that some sects which have ashrams use an election process, but there is still only one Guru or Mahant per sect. Please feel free to explain your own understanding of the word succession. I've asked about four times now and you haven't responded.

The problem is, Dan, you won't acknowledge that I've not only been a Nath for twenty years, I'm that also knowledgable about the sampradaya as a whole and fairly well read about other sects and their processes. While you are taking all your opinions from a single source, Gurunath, and beyond that don't seem to be knowledgable enough to tell which of the many existing texts are applicable to the Naths and which are not. That is, you are not using any faculty of discrimination but only searching out information you can use to bolster your own argument, regardless of its applicability. —Adityanath 19:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and Dan, it's not exactly truthful to say that you are a neuroscientist when in actuality you are a grad student in neuroscience. Now I understand why you don't see any problem with Gurunath's tall tales. You tell 'em yourself. —Adityanath 20:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't know anything about me Adityanath - the trouble is that you think you do. You've never met me, you've never seen me or heard me, you never even knew I existed before I joined wikipedia in January. But one thing I can see is that you love to manipulate words and ideas to fabricate convenient stories for yourself and your agendas. That goes against the fundamental ideal of the Naths - striving for liberation from delusion. Hamsacharya dan 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey dude, I was in a Ph.D. program at UC Irvine once upon a time too. Lessee, Ken Wexler who used to be head of CogSci is now at MIT, right? I think David LaBerge is still there, though. You know what they say, it's a small world. —Adityanath 23:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediator Sam Spade approves article

Look you two, you either need to find a way to get along, or agree to part ways. All this non-stop bickering isn't good for anyone. I read the article, and it seems pretty good to me. I think its a good compromise. Maybe its a good time for you both to take a break for awhile? Sam Spade 00:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, I agree with you that the article is pretty good. I have no desire to change it. I would like to see the #Missing information supplied as that would make the article much more detailed and factual. —Adityanath 00:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Those seem like good questions. Do you think you are able to co-exist peacefully w dan? Sam Spade 10:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Sam, the real question here is whether Dan is able to co-exist peacefully with me. I started out trying to help Dan understand WP, giving helpful suggestions about starting his own article instead of trying to stuff other articles, recommended that he stick to the facts, pointed out the bio of Yogi Bhajan as a good example of a neutral bio, and was for a long time simply trying to be helpful. Dan, however, perceived me as battling him rather than trying to improve WP, and kept getting nastier and nastier, including personal attacks. I've even apologized to him on at least one occasion for calling him a vandal only to have him respond in a negative manner, I am happy to get along if he will make an effort to be civil and not take my good faith edits as being somehow directed against him. —Adityanath 13:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If you both agree to be civil, and think editing together is best for the article, I guess that would be ok. Otherwise I advise you 2 to part ways, at least for an extended "vacation". Sam Spade 21:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

My guru, Gurunath says, "There's so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us, that there's hardly any left of us to criticize the rest of us." We're all here for the same cause - to reach out to people, to teach and to learn to love, to spread the divine love of God, Gorakshanath, Babaji, Shiva, or whatever you may call it. In any case, what's one man to judge another? Let's end our bickering and live in peace and get on with the job. Hamsacharya dan 05:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that everyone taking a week off from editing this page would be a good way to start. For myself, losing peace of mind isn't worth making a point, even in those rare instances that I might be right :-) ॐ Priyanath 14:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan, except... see below. Sam Spade 18:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess they didn't listen to me, shucks... I'm going to sit this one out. I think both of them have some valid points, so good luck. Maybe they can work on an alternate YGS page that doesn't have such a public forum, with an audience cheering every blow... ॐ Priyanath 21:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

User:Hamsacharya dan requested mediation on this article. Two mediators responded, User:Fire Star and User:Sam Spade. They both assisted other editors toward a neutral version, and both certified the result as neutral. Although User:Hamsacharya dan requested the mediation, he never accepted the opinions of the mediators and has continued to introduce bias into the article. This is the version deemed by User:Fire Star to be neutral. [5] This is the version deemed by User:Sam Spade to be neutral. [6] This article needs to be guided back to an nPOV state. I request that the mediators discuss with HD where and how his edits introduce bias, draw conclusions not in the source material, reframe neutral observations to a bias toward his pov, etc. —Adityanath 04:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I fully respect the views of the mediators. If you truly will take a break from this page - that would be a first, and may be a good way to gain some perspective on things - I applaud that initiative. The article was nowhere near a completed state of affairs and has been continuously updated per wikipedia policy to create an encyclopedic, well sourced, and well-rounded text.

TILL NOW: User Adityanath has previously been disruptive in this effort - and has been editing this page in bad faith, despite numerous pleas to reason.

He has had some kind of agenda [7] [8] to undermine articles that conflict with his beliefs. He generally acts under the radar by committing "sneaky vandalism" by

• 1. adding original research to articles and passing them off as coming from verifiable and reliable sources often by putting some very weak or nonsense reference [9], and
• 2. removing quality references that conflict with his views.

I have dealt extensively with him in the past and have generally been very forgiving - at one point I cited him on AN/I [10], citing confirmed multiple sockpuppeting, sneaky vandalism, and original research violations, as well as a couple personal attacks. He convinced me to remove this citation by telling me that he'd work together with me - instead he has become much more intensely engaged in his sneaky vandalism[11] [12] [13] [14]

[15] [16] [17]- to show just a few. Hamsacharya dan 04:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I was taking your biased edits back to the nPOV version. You have not discussed your changes on the talk page since mediator approval of the neutral versions. Why is that? —Adityanath 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Neither have you. Why is that? Plus you've somehow managed to make a rival of yet another user - user talk:AgainstFakeClaims

Every point I added was cited and approved as neutrally stated by both User:Fire Star and User:Sam Spade. Υou have been and are still being intentionally disruptive. Please read WP:POINT. I was simply restoring the mediated versions. Which you need to discuss why you want to change and get consensus. Why would I need to get consensus for an already approved version accepted by ALL the other editors of the article. —Adityanath 04:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Article reads like a PR release. Please do not remove NPOV tags until an agreement has been reached. -999 13:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that this article needs a thorough NPOV review. ---Baba Louis 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

You all can't have it both ways. Three editors worked on the Conflicting or Differing Views section. User:Chai Baba wrote it, but many points were too broad and thus were not true. I believe I narrowed some of the claims and made them less POV. User:Adityanath took out all comparisons with Gurunath and made them truly neutral. Removing neutrally stated cited observations is against WP:NPOV. So, either restore that section and start discussing it, or keep the NPOV tag and let some other experts at NPOV at the article. I'm not gonna get into any edit wars with you guys. ---Baba Louis 00:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

(UTC)

Hmmm, let's see if I'm with the program here. There was an existing article approved and cited as neutral by both User:Fire Star and User:Sam Spade. There has been no discussion of this article on this talk page, but the article has now been ammended in notable ways. I believe the article has been degraded. What say User:Fire Star and User:Sam Spade now? Chai Walla 04:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You have it right. I'm going to list some specific defects and biases below:

1. Early Years section
   1. Intentional misdirection of link "Nath" to Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji rather than Nath article
   2. Raja Sundarnath, referred to as the 400 year old alchemist "Sundarnath Siddha" by David Gordon White in his book about the Nath Siddhas ."[2], during - Gordon does not say that Raja Sundernath = Sundarnath Siddha, this is a conclusion drawn by the author and made to look like stated by the reference
   3. (which is on the Indo-China border) - the reference does not say this, and in fact this is false; the actual location is on the Nepal-China border
   4. Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, whose darshan Yogiraj has personally experienced, is asserted by several direct sources and indirect links (see Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji to be the same as Mahavatar Babaji, referred to in Paramahansa Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi. - a conclusion is made without any supporting reference whatsoever
   5. Since anybody can claim experiences with Babaji - attempts to bias the reader against other views and is ths not nPOV
2. His teaching career & his teachings
   1. quotes are way too long and specific for a general biography
   2. pranapat, shaktipat and shivapat. People who can not do this should be called teachers... - attempts to bias readers against other teachers and views; strange requirement, as YGS is the only teacher in the world who claims to give 'shivapat', a term that he appears to have coined
   3. From the Gurunath Gita, compiled by Nivrutti Nath - possibly fake reference, returns no Google hits, author returns only 11. Certainly not a published work and unacceptable as a reference
3. Synthesis with views of other sources
   1. section has been completely changed and valid difference with tradition has been turned into a false "synthesis" which is written to lead the reader to a conclusion whereas the old section simply stated six points of fact; five of those points have been completely removed

---Baba Louis 11:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I also note that editor User:Kalagni Nath has made all these changes without have even once posted on the talk page. I also note that his account was created on April 2nd, as was User:AgainstFakeClaims. I suspect they are sockpuppets, possibly of User:Hamsacharya dan. Would one of the admins please have this checked and place sockpuppet notices as appropriate? I looked at WP:RFCU but it looks more complex than I'm willing to get into. ---Baba Louis 12:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

All editors

Dan's unilateral changes without discussion must come to an end. I have nothing against changing the article after discussion, but it appears that Dan is AFRAID to discuss things with others. Please help to force him into discussion by reverting ALL undiscussed changes. I can't do it by myself without the risk of 3RR, but together we can make him talk. ---Baba Louis 05:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

MESSAGE FROM YOGIRAJ GURUNATH AND HAMSA YOGA SANGH

Attention Sam Spade: In response to article on 10:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC).

Answer to claim that the word Gurunath was coined in 1986 by Mahendranath: The word Guruath was used in 1967 when [Gurunath] wrote this poem, part of which is given below, in honor of all Gurus and especially Gorakshanath Babaji. This word was also in use and existed thousands of years before. In India, people have been giving this name to their children for a long time, singing it in bhajans, and in honor of this ancient word Gurunath, they give their homes and businesses this very name. The temperment of India Yogis is free and flowing, and it is only from the West that this coining and trademarking has come into being. It's an ego trip to claim ancient words like Siddha, Yoga, Kundalini, and Gurunath as one's personal property. It's just like the white man coming to America and dividing the lands and rivers which the Native American Indians rightly believed to be a free and flowing gift of God, and the common property of all. With divisions, grabbing, and coining began all the headaches and problems of humankind. Surely a greedy and insecure way to go about things, and certainly does not promote unity and harmony in humanity.

Allakh Niranjan, Sri Gurunath

Tum yogijan jivan prabhat

Kripa nidan de do vardan

Harpran tumhara anusandhan

Tum swayambhu jivan jwala ho

Raj hans ka urtha ujala ho

Hrydaya Nath prano pranam

Tum jan ke jivan jwala ho

Answer to criticism on everything from nothingness concept: The philosophy of the onion story is not a re-rendering of the Upanishadic banyan seed analogy, and there has been insufficient evidence to support that claim. Both these stories have totally different connotations. The story of the banyan seed (the Nyagrodha tree, which means sacred fig tree), and it’s subtle essence implies that from the universal Divine Mind doth the whole of creation arise. The onion story implies that from the incomprehensible nothingness of Divine Consciousness doth the everything and all creation arise. These philosophies are poles apart and academic computer clickers often confuse the two concepts due to lack of Self-Realization and due to their over-enthusiasm to prove others wrong instead of meditating on their own faults.

In the Bible, Jesus similarly speaks of the mustard seed growing into a big tree, and having aviary life live and thrive in it. Patanjali has also made reference of the Omkar being the seed of the mind of the universe, dissolving into it's own transcendental matrix. This does not mean that one has re-rendered the other’s realization, it just means that all Great Souls have their own realization, and often many yogis and saints can and do have the same states of realization. The phrase “cunning re-rendering” is in my opinion a projection of the academic researcher’s own mind.

Answer to criticism on philosophy of “Earth peace through Self peace”: Thousands of yogis and saints through the passage of time realized that individual consciousness connects to universal consciousness, that Jiva connects to Siva, the soul connects to the spirit. But this is all their individual experience. And they put it all over the Vedas and Upanishads in their own words. Therefore it is not a cunning re-rendering. It is their own individual experience which is similar to one another's experiences. All these people write in their own individual words according to their own individual temperament. So where is the harm in all this? Even the Pope has his famous utterance for world peace, "Urbi et Orbi". So this does mean that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has copied from the Pope? Or the Pope has plagiarized from the Upanishads? These are all individual people's thoughts and experiences which happily agree with each other or don’t. The Pope and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are drops in the vast ocean of a galaxy of countless evolving souls and so are you and I.

Answer to producing widely accepted evidence from the masses: Yogis whose Inner Guru has awakened need no outer one, nor do they aspire for widely accepted approval from the masses, but for deeper states of Realization. They are in no need of any spurious certificate of evidence from the masses. In [Gurunath's] poem Yogi, inspired by the cosmic mind, he says, "Success n' failure, name and fame // To him a mere doll's wedding game. // In honor and dishonor too, the constant yogi, ever new." Only a Buddha may know a Buddha. Only a Siddha may raise his consciousness to the level of another Siddha and realize him. For a computer surfer to try to realize or prove a Siddha's Realization would be comparable to a person reading a menu, choosing a dish, and trying to realize it's experience without eating the dish. A mere academic trying to prove the stature of spiritual beings is an exercise in futility. For spiritual states are not a subject of academic discussions, but of Self-Realization. Let us meditate more and talk less!

In Conclusion: There is no remedy for a doubting Thomas. The Great Nath Yogis would teach their disciples, saying, why waste precious time doubting and criticizing others when you can use the same for Self-Realization and love? It is not in a Soul’s right to stand in judgment of another Soul, this is the work of the Lord God Himself and He will set things right in His own good time. In view of the above, we would rather utilize our time radiating love and meditating rather than squandering it in intellectual gymnastics. Therefore, we as the Hamsa Yog Sangh would like to gracefully withdraw from all this mind stuff which is in no way directly conducive to Self-Realization. God bless you all and thank you."

• I would like to comment that no information related to the disputed points or strange editing behavior have been addressed here by Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath or the Hamsa Yoga Sangh. Despite the acrimony generated by the lack of good faith discussion on specific points, no one has criticised Yogiraj's alleged Self-Realization or yogic attainments. The questions regarding the articles subject and its content have been confined to issues related to stated WP policies and conflicting views among the editors on specific points. Now that User:Hamsacharya dan has been informed by the subject of the article that no specific information will be forthcoming to clarify the points of contention, he attempts to have the page deleted. This development is in my opinion, an attempt at Public Relations damage control so that criticism or valid questions on point of fact and cited reference not be associated with this page or its subject.-Chai Walla 05:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Shiv leela 06:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Content Debate - post AFD

What specifically are you worried about here Baba Louis? What specific content are you contesting? What content do you want gone/extrapolated and why? If you make your intentions clear, we can have a discussion. But what it looks like is that you're just trying to bother me specifically, and not trying to improve the content of this page. Hamsacharya dan 18:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is all laid out point by point under NPOV dispute above. With regard to the Conflicting views section, it was specifically approved as neutral by both User:Fire Star and User:Sam Spade - stop taking it out. You have to come to a consensus with other editors per WP:CON. So far, myself, Priyanath, Fire Star, and Sam Spade have agreed that the section is appropriate. If you feel it needs to be modified, discuss. Don't just remove it or assume you can convince others to remove it. At this point, it stays. Argue about specific wording if you can. ---Baba Louis 21:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That's out of date, and it doesn't list any specific points of contention. Moderators have abandoned this page because they also realize that this is a POV dispute that they don't care to parse. Conflicting views is a statement of original research - it's a made up excuse by a person who represents what he views as a competing Nath sect. Rather than minding his own business, he tries to discredit someone who is coming into what he views as his "territory". You don't own the Nath tradition. Your views are not the "traditional" views. Don't try to pretend that they are just so you can hijack the Nath sampradaya. Sorry, it's not going to happen. Just because you can make any edits you want on wikipedia, doesn't mean you can play God and make up "facts" so that you can win an argument. Hamsacharya dan 06:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi HD. I hope you find it within the scope of your power of discrimination and intellect to consider a few points for discussion. No, the moderators have not gone anywhere. They are always available on the WP. It is the expectation that editors interested in a topic will discuss conflicting points of view to resolution on a talk page such as this one. If this cannot be done, moderators may step in. This is the way it is and has been here. No, there is no competing Nath sect despite your comment to the contrary. There are only editors here who have an interest in the integrity of the information entered into the WP. In my opinion, your comments are spurious and intended to lead away from discussion. You state in your comment above, "Your views are not the "traditional" views." OK, then. What are "traditional" Nath views? I have asked you a long time ago a number of questions that you have failed to respond to or answer. Who initiated your Guru into the Sampradaya of Naths? This is not an "untraditional"

question in an attempt to discover and reveal why on earth your Guru claims to be a "Nath" and why this claim should be taken seriously by any person. Anyone is capable of writing a book or putting up an internet site and claiming to be a Bishop in the Catholic Church. If the Vatican knows nothing about this person, should the claim find its place in the WP as an encyclopedic fact? I don't think so. What do you think?-Chai Walla 07:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is NOT out of date. My specific comments in the nPOV section are about PRECISELY the version you are reverting to. The moderators approved the conflicting views section, regardless of whether they are here or not. If you disagree and want to remove something go and get either moderator to come here and tell me I misinterpreted their comments. You are in the wrong here, Dan, because you are making no attempt whatsoever to apply WP:CON which requires YOU to do some discussing and compromising. I've been explaining my concerns on this page all along and waiting for other editors including yourself to DISCUSS. You don't get to simply decide on the application of WP rules yourself. If you think you are right and everybody else is wrong, you might actually be the one in the wrong who is attempting to force you POV on the article and all other POVs out. That's why this is an nPOV dispute. Stop taking the nPOV tag off. That will get you blocked again if I report it. Start working with other editors, even

ones you disagree with, in good faith. And go cool off before editing when you get angry. And stop reverting. ---Baba Louis 14:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

'Conflicts with Traditional Views' is quite an odd addition to this page for Naths generally have been in confict with traditional views, my friends. It is only through the fluxuation between abslolute freedom from dogma and re-entering standardised organised religious tradition that the Nath sampradaya gets lumped with 'traditional views'. Every great thinker, visionary, revolutionary, great Saint, Guru or Master should then have a little 'Conflicts with Traditional Views' section in their encyclopediac entry. Why not do the same for the Wikipedia entry for Sri Krishna - Himself? And why stop there and do it for Jesus, Zarathustra, the Buddha Sakyamuni, Prophet Mohammad. Even Sri Yoganandaji had alot of conflict with so-called 'traditional' and 'true' methods of Kriya. According to some He did not give the 'true' Kriya and many have not agreed with his methods of teaching and giving initiation. But do these complaints, even if found to be true, detract from the magnimity of His mission and all that He had achieved in such a relatively short time? Sri Paramhansa RamaKrishna also was considered 'mad' and not traditional when alive. Many didn't value His teachings and went through great pains to make sure their children never got to know of Him or even worse become His disciple. Swami Vivekananda, Himself, wasn't entirely taken with the 'mad' saint either at first and continued to test his Guru many years after initiation and even after His Guru's Mahasamadhi. The methodology and temperment between Guru and Disiple doesn't have to be identicle and in the case of Swami Vivekananda and Sri Ramakrishna it often seemed as if they were polar opposites.

What I also find interesting is that terms as 'Sat Guru' and 'Gurunath' are given authoritive definitions from Westerners that have embraced an Eastern ideology and way of life - and in the process traditional definitions from the East (ie. India) seem to be subordinate to them. It is in the wording 'According to Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswam' or the 'coining' of terms by other Western Gurus. 'The definition of Satguru (lit. 'true teacher') elsewhere does not however include that stricture.' That 'elsewhere' is actually considered more a traditional view than Subramuniyaswam. The other sources (Meher Baba, Sri Satya Sai Baba, Sanskrit Dictionaries, Siddha Yoga, etc.) are listed below in the references and not even named in the same bullet point paragraph as if they don't have the same authorative status as someone from the West who has 'discovered' East.

'Traditionally, one cannot be considered a Guru in the Nath Sampradaya until one's own Guru has passed away or resigned and formally bestowed parampara on one as his successor.' If this is the case how did Sri Lahiri Mahaysaya become a Guru? Or Sri Yukteswarji? Or Sri Yoganandaji? All three were considered Gurus by their respective disciples despite their own Guru being alive in the flesh and the ParamGuru being eternally HERE in the NOW. What about Mahendranath who heard the secrets of Tantra from Shivji's own mouth in deepest oceanic abyss? He went on to form the Nath sampradaya becoming Master and Guru to many whilst his own Guru was ever present. The same can be said of Gorakshanath for he went on to initiate and empower practically everybody he saw until Shivji came to him and reprimanded him and advised to only confer the teachings on those who were ready for them (Dowman, Keith. Masters of the Mahamudra). In the Tibetan tradition of the Mahasiddhas, which many are considered as Naths, we find that some are given initiation and empowerment by Gods, Boddhisattvas and Dakinis. They then in turn become a Master and begin to initiate others - thus, becoming a Guru. Who is the diksa-guru of Sri Guru Dattatreya? Who is the guru of Babaji? In the case of Dattatreya, it may be argued that Nature, Herself, was His guru - and She is still around and so is Sri Guru Dattatreya. As for Babaji, it is hard to say. The Great Mahasidda Tilopa once said that having a Guru is a supreme blessing - even if that guru happens to be a bad one. The fact is that concept of the guru~shisya parampara (of whichever religion, sect or sub-sect), itself, is considered highly sacred. As a Nath or one initiated into the Tibetan Tantrik tradition you should be very careful of deriding or critisizing anothers Guru. For as a Nath one should know that such behaviour is severely looked down upon. Who is anyone to judge anothers Guru except for the disciples themselves? Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita expounds that one should take great care in not putting anothers whole way of being/existence into question in a harsh manner when attempting to educate or enlighten them. Every being in the universe has access or is entitled to a Guru. The Asuras ('Demons' or 'Dark' Gods) had a Guru (Venus) whom they worshipped with great devotion and when they did so they triumphed. The Devatas ('Gods' or 'Light' Gods) had a Guru (Jupiter) and when they failed to revere their guru properly fell and lost their battles. Even the great warrior Ekalavya, from the Mahabharata, was declined formal initiation by Dronacharya (One of the Martial Arts Gurus of the Pandavas and Kauravas) proceeded to build an effigy in Drona's likeness and worshipped it with great devotion. Ekalavya learns the secrets of archery from this effigy and surpasses many of Drona's own advanced disciples in martial arts. The effigy came to life and taught him. Is it really Dronacharya or is it Shivji who is the core-essence of all Gurus - the Supreme Guru? Drona is suprised at Ekalavya's skill and says he never taught him anything - so it is likely that it was Shivji, Himself, teaching Ekalavya martiall arts all along. Even Shri Krishna had a Guru when He left Brindavan and went to Gurukaul in Sandeepany Ashram (Ujjain). Sandeepanyrishi sees Sri Krishna and says 'What can I teach you - You are the Supreme Godhead?' Sri Krishna says that He has come as a disciple and it is varnashrama dharma to complete His studies under a Guru. But I digress... We can focus on 'the conlicts with traditional views' until the cows come home, but what will it do except clock half your life in cybernetic talk time disputing 'facts' and what constitutes 'scientific proof', 'imperial' and 'objective' view points. We as humans have focused for far too long on the conflicts - why not put the same effort into seeing how various teachings, sects and sub-sects have things in common. For focusing entirely on the conflicts is just as biased and not in keeping with an honest discussion.

As for Babaji being Krishna - this is a common way of speaking for Indians which many Westerners may not fully comprehend. For many Hindus any person who descends to earth to reinstate righteousness (Dharma) in times of strife and darkness (as said in the oft quoted passage in the Bhagavad Gita 4:7-8) is considered Krishna. Many Hindus consider the Christ, Jesus, and Krishna to be one. Sri Yoganandaji was very much promoting a unitarian vision and He even had a vision where both Sri Krishna and Sri Jesus were walking hand in hand, smiling and waving and eventually merging into a Divine Light. Many Hindus consider the Buddha to be Krishna and some consider Jaganatha to be a synthesis of Shivji, Krishna and the Buddha. So, Krishna, Himself, even sets forth various conditions on which one may be no different than Him. And even contradicting Himself, in the Srimad Bhagavatam Sri Krishna rejects the Yadavas claiming Him as God and says that He is just the same as them...a Yadav...and even further instructs them to worship a mountain for the mountain has been more useful than Indra (whom they had been offering Vedic sacrifices to). Essentially, one may even say that Babaji is a like an embodiment of the teachings of Krishna and Jesus.

Sri Yoganandaji and other great saints have mentioned that Babaji was often seen with Tibetan monks and on occassion was seen to be wearing Tibetan robes. Even Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi was seen wearing Tibetan Robes after he took Mahasamadhi in Simhla. Some Tibetan monks would perform their Tantrik sadhana in tents next to Babaji sitting in meditation - for He could manifest three dimensional mandalas in space and even transform His own image into any diety they happen to be doing sadhana of . Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi and the Sri Satya Sai Baba both have changed their form to suite the taste of a disciple. They both have been associated with Sri Dattatreya and Shivji (among numerous other Gods). The fact is that a Master who has pierced their own limitations in Samsara and merged with the Clear Light Void knows the science of the spectrum and can use 7 colours and the other materials of creation to change forms to whatever they like. As Sri Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, that whatever/whoever one worships - it is actually Him or a fragment of Himself.

Yes, the Gorakshanath tomb may be in Gorakhpur...but tombs do not restrict Masters in their movements whatsoever!!! Remember Babaji tells Sri Yukteswar that He will be sending him a disciple shortly to go to the West. Sri Yoganandaji was born Gorakhpur. Coincidence - I think not. For his whole life Sri Yoganandaji longed to live in the Himalayas, but that was not His mission in that life. In his next incarnation Sri Yoganandaji has said he will remain in the Himalayas with his close disciples (many of them women for they couldn't enjoy the same intimacy as the male disciples, him being a Swami). Incidently, Sri Yoganandaji finds His Guru in Bengal - precisely where many say Mahendranath (Minanath in Tibetan Tantrik Tradition) was from. Jesus also had a Mahasamadi or tomb...but He rose and delighted all with is divine splendour at the resurrection. Sri Yukteswar also raised Himself and that is highlighted in the Resurrection of Sri Yukteswar in Autobiography of a Yogi). Trailanga Swami, the Great Saint of Kashi, tired of earthly existence and instructed his disciples to construct a wooden coffin-like box and he got in and the box was immersed in Ganga Ma. As disciples stood watching in deep intense mood , they looked to the other shore and saw Trailanga Swami walking alone and eventually He turned, waved and disappeared (Aghora 1 & 2, Dr. R. Svoboda). Basically, physical death is nothing more than a teaching utilised by Masters.

In short, I feel the addition of the 'Conflicts with Traditional Views' seems a bit flimsy and superficial for that tag may be added to EVERY Great Saint, Master or Guru.

May you all find what you seek...

...AUM...

86.10.229.248 19:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath 16/04/06

There you go. Basically what I've said before - but now we have another editor making the same assertions, independently. By the way - make sure you sign all your comments with the 4 tildes. If you want, you can delete that "unsigned comment.." and replace it with your own signature.

Also Baba Louis - Adityanath (Hanuman Das) himself removed most of those conflicting views and moved them to the shiv goraksha babaji article. Then they were reworked until THAT conflicting views section was gone - and adityanath didn't protest. You see Baba Louis, conflicting views is ancient history that only you are trying to preserve. It doesn't belong here - it makes no sense and it has no merit anwhere but your own head. Just because that article is gone doesn't mean you move them back here - the AfD was not a merge vote, but a delete vote. Furthermore, there were about 5 different editors, besides this new person here, who disagree with your version. The moderators have left because they don't want to get in the middle of a dispute that they themselves don't understand. All this religious historical stuff is very difficult to parse - they know that they wouldn't be able to do it justice, so they left. Since then there have been 5 editors alterting things besides you - and they all disagree with you. Also, you haven't really added anything to this article whatsoever - you have only tried to discredit Gurunath. The reason is, that you know nothing about him. You haven't read any of his books, and you haven't spent any real time with him in person - therefore you have absolutely no authority here. Your statements are all pedantic original research in an effort to discredit someone you know nothing about. The only motive I can conclude is that as a follower of another Nath sect, you feel compelled to drive away the "competition". Rest assured that we are not trying to compete with you and that this is not the Nath way - which is free-flowing. We don't worry about others, we focus on ourselves. You might want to read over WikipediAhimsa and relax a little bit. Hamsacharya dan 17:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• There remains a difference between religious fantasy or allegory and fact related to a living person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article. An assertion which cannot be proven or is unlikely to be proven true is best defined as a claim. A claim made by a person is not the same as the person. This article in its present state presents too many dubious claims to stand without either paring them out or presenting reasonable rebuttal as a part of the article. The obvious solution is to pare down the dubious claims.-Chai Walla 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that what Baba Louis is doing is not "paring down dubious claims", what he's doing is adding dubious claims. I told you from the beginning on my talk page, and I've stated in here twice that i'm willing to pare down or restate information that you feel is "dubious", or as you've stated before "outlandish", but I will not stand for slanderous nonsense that has no basis in reality. Hamsacharya dan 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• In your quest for assertions to be proven 'true' (according to whom? Is it the Wikipedia police? Is it the Enquiries into Religious Claims Unit? Or your own enlighten perspective?) you will no doubt have to include huge bulk of anything said by or relating to any religious personage. Take for example Mahendranath (Born Mr. Wales)...you say he was initiated by various figures in Eastern mysticism and religious tradition. What is the proof that this actually took place. What is the proof that these figures actually belong to any Order or tradition. Adopting or being initiated under a name from a particular religious tradition imbues that person with the religious allegory associated with that epithet or title. For example, John Doe goes to India an gets spiritual and gets initiated into a Nath Order and then is given the title 'Gorakhnath'. That person has no choice but to be associated with the 'religious fantasy or allegory' associated with the 'mythical' figure of Gorakhnath. 'Claims' are made by scientists, rational minds and lovers of logic and reason just as they are made by religious figures or persons within a mystical or religious tradition. The lines become even more complicated for particular branches of Hinduism (ie. Tantra, Siddha, Nath) are inextricably connected to science or scientific methods of study and analysis. In your quest to be objective in Wikipedia will inevitably lead you to being chained to a computer for the rest of your life editing and adding 'claim' tags to countless Wikipedia entries. Turn your quest for 'true' assertions on yourself and you'll find that it will not be as simple as finding empirical facts or figures or proof.

11:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Well put, Shaninath. Let's not be hypocrites in life. Let's walk our talk. Hamsacharya dan 14:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute redux

The following point have still not been responded to in any way. Please respond briefly and to the point in this section.

1. Early Years section
   1. Intentional misdirection of link "Nath" to Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji rather than Nath article

• Shiv-goraksha babaji article doesn't exist any longer so that's not an issue. Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Raja Sundarnath, referred to as the 400 year old alchemist "Sundarnath Siddha" by David Gordon White in his book about the Nath Siddhas ."[2], during - Gordon does not say that Raja Sundernath = Sundarnath Siddha, this is a conclusion drawn by the author and made to look like stated by the reference
   2. (which is on the Indo-China border) - the reference does not say this, and in fact this is false; the actual location is on the Nepal-China border

• I will take these two points out altogether, since they are not essential to the article. Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, whose darshan Yogiraj has personally experienced, is asserted by several direct sources and indirect links (see Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji to be the same as Mahavatar Babaji, referred to in Paramahansa Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi. - a conclusion is made without any supporting reference whatsoever

• This evidence was in the Shiv-goraksha-babaji article. I will restate that specific evidence in this article. Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. Since anybody can claim experiences with Babaji - attempts to bias the reader against other views and is ths not nPOV

• Please specify specifically which remarks you are referring to. I will remove any remarks like these that I come across. Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. His teaching career & his teachings
   1. quotes are way too long and specific for a general biography

• I will pare it down. Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. pranapat, shaktipat and shivapat. People who can not do this should be called teachers... - attempts to bias readers against other teachers and views; strange requirement, as YGS is the only teacher in the world who claims to give 'shivapat', a term that he appears to have coined

• Gurunath doesn't claim that he's the only one that has given Shivapat. However, this statement isn't essential for this article. I will remove or restate it appropriately to eliminate any connotation that he's the only one in the world that can do it. Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. 1. From the Gurunath Gita, compiled by Nivrutti Nath - possibly fake reference, returns no Google hits, author returns only 11. Certainly not a published work and unacceptable as a reference

• That's nonsense - it is a real work. However, in the interest of facilitating reconciliation, I will remove reference to it for now, until it get's ISBN'ed and such... Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Synthesis with views of other sources
   1. section has been completely changed and valid difference with tradition has been turned into a false "synthesis" which is written to lead the reader to a conclusion whereas the old section simply stated six points of fact; five of those points have been completely removed

• Just as the Sundernath Siddha vs Raja Sundernath discussion revealed that there can be alternate interpretation of facts which cannot be proven (you claim that they are not the same, and I claim that they are the same), in the same way, these are also interpretations that don't belong here. I say synthesis, you say conflict. Who's correct? The answer is that it doesn't matter - this isn't a discussion, it's an encyclopedia - no original research. Therefore, I will remove this section altogether. Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

---Baba Louis 18:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support the permanent inclusion of an NPOV tag on this article until all the above issues are resolved. I'm not inclined to make edits to the page, because YGS is not my Guru, and I'm not going to get into an endless edit war over someone else's Guru. But because of slights against other gurus(#2.2), the refusal to allow valid qualifying statements about the Mahavatar Babaji claims, and the refusal to compromise or work out differences with other editors, I will vote that this article have a permanent NPOV tag that cannot be removed (if that's possible under WP guidelines). ॐ Priyanath 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

'Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji, whose darshan Yogiraj has personally experienced...same as Mahavatar Babaji, referred to in Paramahansa Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi. - a conclusion is made without any supporting reference whatsoever' The reference is in the book itself. In the physical description. Long hair past the knees with a strange reddish, gold and black hue. Golden shining complexion - looking slightly wet as if He'd just been in Ganga~Ma. Large unblinking glowing eyes. Using non~ordinary means of communication. Read Baba Hari Das' book 'Hariakhan Baba: Known and Unknown' and you will find that Masters are not confined to names and forms. 'Shiv Goraksha Babaji' is what He is to Yogiraj and that particular name is forged through a pastlife connection. Babaji has taken on numerous forms throughout the years and has initiated many.

'Since anybody can claim experiences with Babaji - attempts to bias the reader against other views and is ths not nPOV' As far as I've seen there are no attempts to 'bias' anyone in terms of Babaji. Forgive me for I have no idea what nPOV means, but yes anyone may claim experiences with Babaji and that is everybody's God given right. How Babaji interacts with that individual is a mystery and one may scarcely pierce into His divine motives. Remember in the Autobiography of a Yogi and the preface of The Holy Science when Sri Yukteswar meets Babaji in the MahaKumbh. Sri Yukteswar sees Babaji massaging the feet of a sadhu whom Sri Yukteswar clearly saw was not of exceptional character. However, it is a lesson in humility for Babaji always acts with special Teaching to be taught. Again, I fail to see your purpose in trying to relegate anything to do with Babaji into a 'Claims' box. Babaji will not make appearances just to 'prove' anything to anybody unless He seems fit. Even Sri Lahiri Mahasaya invoked His presence when some of his friends doubted him and began to ridicule him. But that was the last time for why should pearls be cast to dogs for they shall not understand the beauty. But of course, this is also a 'claim' isn't it?

Shivapat is not a coined term and has been in use by sadhus, saints and Masters for many, many years. Shiva Bala Yogi used to give Shivapat. Actually, many great saints that you read about (Anandamayee Ma, Shiva Bala Yogi, and Hariakhan Baba - only to name a few) Yogiraj met in person and was given special blessings. Many of them could give Shivapath. The fact is that at the moment there are very few saints of the same calibre in the public as there were in the beginning and middle of the 20st century and further back into the beyond. In fact, when you take initiation into the Nath sampradaya the Guru must take responsibility for the disciples welfare. The Guru must impart a fragment of His own blissful consciousness. Then the disciple must cultivate this in their own sadhana. It is the same in the Tibetan Tantrik Tradition - Tilopa, Naropa and Marpa all gave forms of Pranapath, Shaktipath and Shivapath. Even the Karmapa and HH Dalai Lama gives special transmissions of Shaktipath related to specific dieties of a mandala. The Guru breathes through the disciple - the Guru teaches the disciple to everything anew. Read the GorakhBodh (http://www.religiousworlds.com/mandalam/gorakh.htm) and the Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati (http://www.religiousworlds.com/mandalam/siddha.htm - Quote: "There is nothing greater than guru, nothing greater than guru, nothing greater than guru, nothing greater than guru. Shiva is the instructor. Shiva is the instructor. Shiva is the instructor. Shiva is the instructor." - Siddha Siddhanta Paddhati, V, 63. ) and you'll find how high a standard of Guru Gorakhshanath puts forth. The Supreme Guru will work through you.

'Gurunath Gita' is a published work and is available. Not available online at the moment, but patience, my dear, it will appear in due time. It is lovely small book that is a great resource for HYS. You speak with such authority in deliberating whether something is 'credible'. How 'credible' is any spiritual classic, my friend? Why not apply the same 'credible' gloss to the classics you know and love.

I applaude your efforts to get to the bottom of something...what that is, is quite a mystery. But good luck in your task.

Hara Hara Hara Mahadev!!! 22:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Sharinath, you seem to not understand the issues being brought up. nPOV, or neutral point of view, means that the article may not be either for or against the subject. Specifically, it means that cited criticism or conflict cannot be removed, even if you don't agree with them. They represent someone else's POV, which is not going to be the same as your own. Second, there should only be verifiable facts in the article and the verification must be cited and the references available to others to verify. If a work is not published, for example, it may not be used as a reference and anything in the article based on it should be removed. Regardless of your personal knowledge, information cannot be included unless you can find a reference for it. Also, you cannot draw conclusions for the reader, and especially not pretend that a reference source agrees with that conclusion. That is the problem with identifying Raja Sundernath with Sundernath Siddha. Nobody has said in print that they are the

same, so the article cannot imply that they are. Please do some reading on WP policies. WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, etc. Nobody is attacking your guru, that would not be nPOV. Howwever, you can't use WP to promote him either. Neutrally stated conflict or differences are allowed - you are not allowed to remove them if they are cited. They are NOT original research if they are cited. H. Dan is abusing several terms such as vandalism, original research and concensus so don't take his word for everything. Read through the policies and negotiate with the other editors. And you should create an account. People editing from IP addresses are not taken as seriously as those who show some committment to WP by creating an account. ---Baba Louis 23:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Then this is an inherent flaw within Wikipedia (and often modern Euro-centric academia)! For a break off point has been made between publication in the past and publication in present and future. Books published in the past, even if they were susceptible to the very same 'criticism' or 'conflict' as you put forth in this discussion page(s), are considered as valid 'references' and anything newly published must use previous sources as references. Like building a castle with a deck of cards of factually co-dependant academically and prim and proper scholarly entries. Oh how nice, this all is, in THEORY. You also are not fully grasping the points that this one has brought forth. Read closely and reflect - there are answers there to your questions.

Here in lies the crux of what Shaninath is trying to say...Is it better to put the same referential gloss on everything to do with the subjects discussed and try to conform entries of this kind to the same prescribed preconceived model - neatly implanting 'claim' tags hither and thither...or...would it be far more advantageous from a scientific point to allow a religious tradition, movement, sect, sub-sect or new religious movement, an avenue to present themselves as they see themselves. Shaninath says keep your 'criticism', keep your 'conflicts', but allow one body to present themselves as they see themselves. The issue is three-fold and it must be considered, in my humble opinion, for any writing on a religious/mystical tradition to truly be as neutral as possible.

1. Again, How that organisation, mission, body, sect/sub-sect, movement or mission sees themselves. 2. How do society view that body. 3. What is the personal view of the writer writing about both how the body views themselves and how society views the body.

Without the first step being allowed to express itself with as little interference from other POV - then the rest of the study does not properly fall in line and is biased and hence not as neutral as it, perhaps, could be.

Unfortunately, taken seriously on Wikipedia does not rank very high in the objectives of Shaninath at the moment, but maybe in the unforeseen future. Shaninath is writing for you, because we are brothers. And of course, brothers don't always get along and that sometimes pushes things forward and but can just as easily push things backward.

Here is a fascinating article on the how a Wikipedia 'biography' may never be considered as critical for the time being (until there are some changes in methodology and orthopraxis/orthodoxy)

A False Wikipedia 'Biography' http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm (2 pop ups)

In any case, it is a work in progress.

May you all find what you seek! ...AUM... 86.10.229.248 08:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

1. This article is not about an organisation, mission, body, sect/sub-sect, movement or how a mission sees themselves. This is a Wikipedia article about a living person.

2. How do society view that body? This is largely irrelevant to a Wikipedia biography.

3. What is the personal view of the writer writing about both how the body views themselves and how society views the body.(?) Again, the guidelines for the Wikipedia is intended to present a Neutral Point of View so that the reader might gain information without being influenced by Pro or Con remarks.

This page is for discussion of the subject and article on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath only. Please write comments critical of Wikipedia guidelines and rules on your own talk page or personal blog. Thanks-64.122.249.2 20:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of reconciliation, I have responded to the NPOV redux. My responses have been inserted into the NPOV redux text, and I will incorporate these changes into the article. Please do not make further changes to the article. Discuss first, then we can come to an agreement if necessary. I have shown here that I am true to my word that I was willing to remove information that Baba Louis and Chai Walla considered to be "outlandish". Hamsacharya dan 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether a 'body' refers to an individual or a collective my own personal views on presenting a 'Neutral Point of View' remain unchanged. As the saying goes "No Man is an Island"...One does not exist in a vaccuum. I find it very strange that you deem how society views an individual (or a collective) as 'irrelevant' to a Wikipedia biography - for it is only through public opinion that, say for example, Mozart would be considered 'among the most significant and enduringly popular composers of European classical music' (taken from Wikipedia entry on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart).

'This article is about a living person' - yes, no doubt. However, that individual in question is inextricably connected with Hamsa Yoga Sangh and its mission. Once any article exhausts the physicality of an individual, such as descriptions of the physical person, birth, name, upbringing, achievements, pivotal events in life, etc. Then there generally comes a point when the ideology or world-view of that person must be considered. Has that world view changed over their lives or has it remained constant? Is that world view a product or by-product of pivotal events or socio-economic upbringing?

Let us take for example HH Dalai Lama (the 14th Dalai Lama). He was born with a name Tenzin Gyatso. Then through unforeseen events that his family could not have predicted, this little child became known as the 14th Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama belongs to a tradition and that traditional view in integral to the whole biography of this living person. Not all agree with the traditional view and indeed within the very same tradition there are various disputes as to what spiritual and political authority the Dalai Lama holds. To complicate matters further, HH the Dalai Lama also has a view on society and the tradition He belongs to and He also has a view of himself. He has often said that He is the same as anyone else - a human being. He has also said that He is a 'simple monk'. But many in society disagree with Him on these points and firmly place Him as a reincarnation of Avalokateswara and hence a living, breathing Boddhisattva. Others view Him as a Buddha and some Hindus consider Him as a God for Buddhists. In that same Wikipedia entry there must be a mention of People's Republic of China's view on HH the Dalai Lama. And interestingly enough there are members of the scientific community that view HH the Dalai Lama in a certain light and even protested His recent talks on Neuroscience at Stanford University. Then there are members of the Christian community that believe He is trying to convert everybody into Buddhism. Think very deeply about what is being raised here. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Let us take it further now...what if the person who begins a Wikipedia biography is the person, themself (ie. John Doe creates an entry for 'John Doe' in Wikipedia). Then what is the neutrality of the entry? What if the one who makes an entry is one who belongs to an organisation or collective that the person in question (in the biography) is inextricably linked with?

It is no doubt important to include individuals with their own POV. I find it highly improbable that the majority of entries are not coloured by some POV. Neutrality is in the eyes of the beholder. What if Pro and Con remarks form a part of the ideology of an individual - won't that influence the reader? Think about Karl Marx and his view on religion. After reading his views will that influence your view on religion? Perhaps, but that is education, my dear.

Yes, this article is about Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath...and he has a mission and goal in His life. He has something to propogate and promote and there is nothing wrong with it in these eyes.

Please forgive if I have offended any in my criticism of Wikipedia guidelines and rules. I have also written several times how difficult a task Wikipedia is and I have applauded everybody's efforts in trying to make it something special.

May you all auspiciousness be showered on you all... 86.10.229.248 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Shaninath, I think you bring up a very important point in the mention of your example, Tenzin Gyatso. In the Wikipedia article under the name Dalai Lama, it tells explicitly the manner in which Tenzin Gyatso was recognised and became to be referred to as the 14 Dalai Lama. The article on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhnath, says nothing on the matter of why Sidhoji Rao Shitole changed his name to YGS or claims to be a Nath and Sat Guru. There is no evidence in this YGS article to resist the POV that all his names and titles are self created religious fantasy. I am willing to conceed that religious fantasy and spiritual purpose may happily coincide and perhaps even occupy a social mind-share. At the same time, what is the real story? YGS claims to be a Nath. Who initiated him and what is his Sampradaya? ---Chai Walla 07:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the case of HH Dalai Lama there was a formal recognition (from certain particular bodies within the Tibetan Buddhist Tradition). But there are countless others who have seemingly emerged from the ether to proclaim themselves something (other than their former incarnation) and also proclaimed that their mission was/is divinely sanctioned - ie. Jesus, Prophet Mohammmad, Zarathustra, David Icke (whose article's neutrality is not disputed on Wikipedia, strangely - perhaps it is because he was born in the West and thus more credible?) only to name a few. Let us take for example Sri Satya Sai Baba. He was born and given the name Sathya Narayana Raju. Eventually, He transformed into Sri Satya Sai Baba. It is unclear how this transformation actually occured. He has proclaimed Himself as a reincarnation of Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi and has revealed a Sai prophecy of the Sai Trinity - a sort of quasi-avatarhood that came as a result of the Rishis (Ancient Seers of the Vedas) prayers for a luminous figure in this dark time. There are those who are devotees of Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi that do not recognise Sri Satya Sai Baba and refute the claims. Then there are His own devotees that feel that they are one in the same (including Prema Sai who will be born in the 2020's). And of course, there are a whole slew of others both within and without 'Hinduism' that feel rather bothered by both His claims, His power/influence and His persona. All of this should be included in the biography to keep it all nPOV. It is a fact that an individual claims to be such-and-such and it is also factual about how true/false that claim is. Both are 'facts'. I understand your query into trying to contextualise the precise lineage and I agree it is not entirely clear whether Babaji initiated Yogiraj, Himself or if the initiation was given by another (or, indeed, others - plural). I have heard that He did have to go through a various stages - ie. First He got the title 'Gurunath', then 'Siddhanath' and eventually 'Yogiraj'. Some Hamsas knew Him when He was only Gurunath Siddhanath. Apparently, these titles were bestowed by a Nath hierarchy in the Himalayas. It is a relationship that was developed in His formative years when He went to stay in the Himalayas months at a time. He had already been practising various types of Yoga before and quite possibly may have been initiated into Kriya Yoga by His grandfather or another relative - for one of His family gurus was Sri Yukteswar. Thus have I heard...but perhaps you'll have to ask Him directly in person if you can.

Ram, Ram, Ram... 86.10.229.248 09:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Poetry section

I have a number of criticisms, but for now I will start with the poetry section. It is appropriate to note the YGS is a poet, and even to talk about the contents of his poetry and list the titles of some of his major poems. But it is not approprate to quote any poems, This is an encyclopedia and not an anthology or a critical review. Check out the articles on poets like Walt Whitman and Robert Frost. Not a single poem is quoted. If you'd like a more spiritual poet, check out Kahlil Gibran. Again, not a single poem is quoted. This is what I mean when I say that it seems that you are trying to inappropriately promote YGS and his works. Please make the section more in line with encyclopedia standards. Thanks. ---Baba Louis 23:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotations in general

Again, I still believe the other quotations to be way too long. By way of contrast, please see articles on Muktananda, Da Free John, and Rajneesh. Only very short quotes, if any. Another article for comparison is Tenzin Gyatso (the Dalai Lama). It does have a quotations section, but does not use quotes as examples throughout the text. This is supposed to be about YGS, not a teaching platform for his words. Please modify the article to be in line with other similar teachers. If the ones I used are not good examples, pick you own. I think you will find the articles use quotes very sparingly. Rewrite what you think is important in your own words. ---Baba Louis

I'm a little confused as to what the problem is here. We have a section entitled "Teaching career and teachings". I didn't make up this section - one of you guys did. What's the difference whether the teachings are in my words or his words? That's the whole point of including quotations - so that you can use a primary source to instruct an article. I'm not promoting Gurunath any more here than the simple fact of the existence of his article promotes Gurunath. Promotion means "advertising, personal selling, sales promotion, and/or publicity and public relations". If anything an encyclopedia entry falls into the publicity category, since it serves as a public interface to disseminate information on a public figure. The essential difference here is that publicity usually has a SPIN while an encyclopedia entry only has pure INFORMATION. Spin means revealing only certain information about a subject which promotes a motive - usually money-making. Do you assert that that's what we're doing? And if so, how specifically? There is no caveat there for quotations, especially when they're primary source quotations. There is also no rule about how many quotations you can have in an article, from what I can tell. As far as poetry - I've heard from a few wikipedia sources that it's ok to have one or two excerpts, especially when the subheading is specifically about the poetry of the individual, which makes up a significant portion of his teachings. Gurunath has at least 2 books just on his poetry, with a 3rd manuscript on its way. He also has quoted excerpts of his poetry in just about every single other book/brochure/publication that he releases. Poetry in this context is no different than a quotation. I will remove one of the three poem excerpts. Rabindranath Tagore has a section for poetry, as an example that this is done. Hamsacharya dan 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are policies: WP:NPS and WP:FU... a quote from the the latter about text quote: "Brief, attributed quotations of copyrighted text used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea may be used under fair use." I don't beleive your quotes are brief enough; I believe the policiy allows for perhaps 2-4 sentence quotes, not 2+ paragraphs... ---Baba Louis 18:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I just want to add my two cents - only to try and see you come up with the best article that you can, without you being forced into endless debate. I'm no longer vested in either side of this debate, since I won't edit the article. So I'm quite sincerely offering suggestions to make a more attractive article. I'm not interested in debating these things, or saying one way is right or wrong, just offering suggestions that I think will work for everyone.

1. Regarding extensive use of quotes: all the biographies on Wikipedia are *about* a person, and not *by* a person. It looks like there are more words by YGS in the current article than there are other words. It makes this 'biography' look like an 'autobiography', which is not very encyclopedic.

2. I think you should have more about YGS's life and what he teaches, rather than descriptions of his exalted spiritual state (satguru, etc.) and spiritual experiences. And I think that would actually be more attractive to people. If you look at the Paramahansa Yogananda article, you won't find any descriptions by Yogananda of his various visions of Krishna, Christ, Babaji, and others. Nor will you find a description by Yogananda of his various exalted samadhi experiences. Even the description of his teachings are a synopsis, rather than a quote from Yogananda.

3. The description of Yogananda's autobiography could be a template for the YGS page. Rather than having extensive quotes from YGS's book, why not have a short description of what the book is about, with perhaps one short excerpt, and a link to passages from the book on his website?

I say all this with trepidation that I'll get caught up in the crossfire here. I'm tempted to mind my own business, but want to share this in the spirit of helping you write the best article you can. ॐ Priyanath 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Both of your comments are duly noted, and I will do my best to work on the article per both of your suggestions. Please bear with me - I'm not trying to withhold any biographical information on this website - I simply don't have access to it at the moment. Perhaps another hamsa or expert on Gurunath will come in and try to add biographical details. I hear what both of you are saying, and will do my best to clean up the article with time to make it look more and more encyclopedic. The simple fact of the matter is that Wings to Freedom is Gurunath's autobiography, and as such is the premiere written source for biographical information - that's why so much of this article quotes the book. In any case, what we have now is the best that I can do at the moment, without making a huge revamping effort, which I don't have a lot of time for at the moment. I agree that it's not completely "there" yet, but it's also not a bad start and a work in progress. I like how things are going with this discussion right now - we're all listening to each other and working together. Because of that, and because AfD ruled in favor of keeping the article twice, I will do my best to improve this article with time. Gurunath will be in the US in a few months - I will try to get his help with this at that point as well. Hamsacharya dan 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, since the NPOV redux was mitigated, and since these points don't relate to quality of content, but rather format of content, can we agree to remove the NPOV tag for now? Hamsacharya dan 19:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather leave the NPOV tag on for now. The quotation bit was really part of that discussion. The extensive use of quotations gives YGS's POV view of himself. This needs balance. One way to balance it is to use fewer shorter quotes. Just for example, if there was not the quote about Raja Sundernath, then there would not need to be the quote from Briggs. I really haven't finished doing a detailed NPOV read-through since the sheer size of the quotes themselves gives a POV slant to the article. Once they are trimmed down or the essential point rewritten from an objective view then it will be easier to make the rest of the article NPOV. ---Baba Louis 20:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I also think the disputed NPOV tag should stay. The article is still quite a distance from NPOV. The only difference is that there is now some minor discussion. I believe the Poetry section should be removed. A mention of YGS writings is more appropriate. This is a simple point and edit that has already been suggested. I will wait a few days for comments or for HD to edit. If there is no objection or further discussion on this explicit point I will make the changes myself.--Chai Walla 06:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In Re: Poetry section - I formally object. I feel that there is absolutely no reason to remove the poetry section, and several valid reasons for it to stay, as outlined above (18:09, 20 April 2006). If you are intractible to this, then I suggest mediation to help us decide peacefully. Hamsacharya dan 21:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition, Chai Walla, I feel that the concomitant responses by yourself and Baba Louis are wholly inappropriate until you are formally cleared of the "confirmed sockpuppeting" judgment on RFCU. And for the record, this is not an attack on you. Think about it if you were in my position - you would request the same. Hamsacharya dan 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

HD, your objection to removing the Poetry section is noted. That you disagree is clear. Baba Louis gave very clear reasoning and example why the section is inappropriate. It would be nice, for the sake of discussion, that you include your reasoning why the section should be kept. You have given no rationale for your position so I find it difficult to consider this a discussion. Be so kind as to point out where I am a "confirmed sockpuppet" so this mistake can be corrected. Chai Walla 22:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Poetry is argued here - in the latter half of my first paragraph in this section [18]. Furthermore, take a look at articles for ee cummings - which includes 3 poems in the text body. Also note that the ee cummings article has 3 tags advocating it's legitimacy as an article in the discussion, it has been "listed as a good article", it has been "peer reviewed" and was even so much as nominated for featured article status. TS Eliot, Edgar Allen Poe, etc - you will find that they list hyperlinks to whole wikipedia articles each devoted to one of their poems (because of the sheer quantity of information, they have partitioned the information this way - neither Gurunath's biography nor poetry section are large enough to merit this, hence the excerpts.)
• Sockpuppeting was confirmed here [19]. So far they have refused to recheck you for some reason, despite both Adityanath and myself re-requesting at different times. Hamsacharya dan 01:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi HD, Thank you for pointing out my sockpuppet status. Since I am not a sockpuppet, I'm afraid I didn't take your repeated assertions very seriously as they are not true. I have sought advice from an administrator on how to best handle this situation. At the same time, if you have any ideas on what may put your suspicions to rest, please indicate them here. As for the poetry section, I don't believe that YGS has the same notability as a poet as say, TS Eliot or Edgar Allen Poe. Nor did his poetry earn him a Nobel Prize as in the case of Rabindranath Tagore. When YGS earns a Nobel Prize or is known world wide as a poet, perhaps I will reconsider my position. In the mean time, I think your efforts to include excerpts from YGS poetry are purely promotional and out of place.-Chai Walla 07:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

This page seems to be in need of clean up. I've looked at this discussion page and it appears to be disputed. In regards to Wikipedia standards, the Sat Guru section needs to be removed and put into the Sat Guru article upon discussion with the editors there. The poetry section is non-notable and better removed. The works are more correctly listed under published works. The history of the subject would read better if it stated the facts surrounding the subjects life and then moved on to the adoption of a new name and identity as a teacher of yoga. In its current version, I don't believe the article conforms to NPOV standards.---I'm Babaji 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I see that a whole long paragraph by YGS has already been integrated into Sat Guru, so I will resolve that by removing the duplicate paragraph from this article. I suggest you put a cleanup or NPOV tag on the article. I've given up as HD keeps arbitrarily taking it off... ---Baba Louis 04:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the points have been discussed to any reasonable resolution. Why has the diputed NPOV tag been removed without discussion here?---I'm Babaji 05:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is looking much better than it used to. I've sworn off edit warring with Hamsacharya dan over this article, but it looks like others are finally making progress with him. Perhaps some of you guys could help with Gurunath, a bunch of uncited material has been added by a new editor. —Hanuman Das 13:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Sundernath

I have a copy of the "Wings of Freedom" and cannot find reference to the page which is qouted under the Raja Sundernath section. Would an editor please list the page number here so I can verifiy the qoute? Thank you.---I'm Babaji 06:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Depends on which edition of the book you have. It's near the beginning, within the first 15 pages. Hamsacharya dan 09:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV redux - no one signed off on the removal of differing views section

Dan, in spite of your last edit comment, nobody approved the removal of the differing views section. I did not sign off on removing it, neither did User:Priyanath or User:Chai Baba or User:Hanuman Das or User:Fire Star or User:Sam Spade. Please put it back until you can actually demonstate a consensus for its removal.

Also, while I generally approve of the other nPOV work we did, I notice that you have sneakily reverted some of it recently. Please stop you habit of reverting work when you think others have stopped paying attention. ---Baba Louis 18:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are vandalizing an article. None of this information has anything to do with the article, or it has already been mitigated by the articles content. User Shaninath, User Cott12, myself, you/Hanuman Das previously agreed or didn't dispute the prior edit. Sam Spade and Fire Star have kept themselves out of this for a long time - they have no interest in a victictive, unrelenting attack from yourself. You are going back to this conflicting views as retaliatory attack to waste my time. I will be making this information known on the RfC. I will also be writing up an RfC of my own regarding your actions, if you continue this undue assault - don't forget that you and Hanuman Das are still confirmed sockpuppets - it's not a mystery that you both do the exact same things and promote the exact same agendas with your edits. Hamsacharya dan 19:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent people's opinions. I have it in personal email that User:Cott12 does not agree. Do not use his alleged opinion, not stated anywhere on this talk page, to bolster your false claim of consensus. I don't think you would be very happy if you attempt to force Cott12 into this dispute. His opinion about you is not what you seem to think.

Also, please note that your repeated use of the word "vandalism" is inappropriate and offensive for a content dispute. With you latest reversion to the article, you are simply making it clear that you are the person responsible for edit warring. Thanks, I'll add the fact to the RfC. —Hanuman Das 19:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Last edit to the article was me; not trying to be sneaky, simply forgot to login. ---Baba Louis 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Next anonymous update is by me. Note that I have a different IP address than Baba Louis. Try a traceroute. We are in different parts of the country. He is not my sockpuppet. You can stop making false claims, now, HD. —Hanuman Das 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't tell you anything - not to mention that there's plenty of IP rerouting software out there. Fact of the matter is that RFCU admins are among the most trusted admins on WP, and they caught you off guard and caught you red handed. You're either sockpuppets or meatpuppets - but one things for sure - you haven't done anything constructive in this article. So who cares where you're from? Get a life and stop wasting yours and other people's time. Hamsacharya dan 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

We're editors, Dan. Not sockpuppets, not meatpuppets (that term by the way is considered incivil). We beleive we are adding to the overall quality of the article by pointing out the context in which YGS is making his claims. That is our right as Wikipedia editors, and it is also our right to be treated with respect and have the assumption of good faith. But go ahead and continue to be incivil, so I can add it to the RfC. Dig yourself in deeper... —Hanuman Das 02:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You overstepped your bounds long ago - there's no question that your actions are incivil and destructive. Anybody with half a brain would see that your edits are destructive. First of all you're saying that his "claims and purported visions go against traditional views" but your citations are weak, they conflict themselves, they are not traditional views (therefore misinformed), and a person who tells life experiences cannot go against traditional views - they are life experiences, they are not beliefs and therefore are not up for debate. Hamsacharya dan 02:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No where is it mentioned that Sri Yoganandaji, Sri Lahiri Mahasaya or anyone to that effect, is an 'authority' on Mahavatar Babaji. All who came in contact with Him stressed His incomprehensible nature, unknowable and supremely divine personage. Please meditate and commune with them and you'll hear first hand that they don't considered themselves as an 'authority' on the subject. Remember that Krishna was Sri Yoganandaji's Ishta Devata and hence all things he considered Divine were an emanation of Krishna. It is the same for a devotee of Shiva, Shaivate. Also, Sri Yoganandaji was by no means 'traditional' in the context in which you use him as a reference. He considered Krishna, Babaji and Jesus Christ as virtually the self~same Divine Entity. Within Kriya circles there has been widescale debate about who is teaching the true Kriya and it seems very unlikely that it will end unless people make steps to overcome. Sri Yoganandaji was even accused by some that he wasn't giving Kriya in the 'traditional' manner - despite being considered one of the most 'traditional' exponents of Kriya in the West. Remember, Babaji was lovingly pushed and gave in to Sri Lahiri Mahasaya pleading to spread Kriya to all who are willing and able - despite Babaji saying it was only for the 'hill people'. Anyways, I have changed the wording slightly to make it as nPOV as possible, but I must say that I'm not entirely satisfied with the way in which things are presented as 'traditional'. Please scroll up and read again all the issues that were raised about these 'traditional' views. The fact that two emminent saints say that Gorakhnath's tomb is in two very distinct regions demonstrates the futility of the 'traditional' claim on that front. If you would only spend more time in India, you'd see that even more places would be cited as his tomb. Even still, what does Gorakhnath's musical tomb have to do with any 'traditional' conflict in relation to Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath? 213.106.1.25 08:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

3 revert rule warning

To all editors: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also suggest to staying cool when the editing gets hot. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jossi - if this is the case, then Hanuman Das/Baba Louis have already reverted 3 times in 24 hours. These two usernames are confirmed sockpuppets per WP:RFCU [20]. I'm only saying this to show that either they are the same person or they are acting as a "gang" and bullying a single editor. If you look back in the history, you will see that they have never added anything substantive to this article, except weak criticisms in order to promulgate their own agenda - to promote their Guru Shri Gurudev Mahendranath at the expense of others (they see YGS as competition with their Guru), rather than to add information in collaboration with others. You can see evidence of this in other pages as well such as Nath, Gurunath, Mahavatar Babaji if you look back far enough, and Kriya Yoga. Rather than focusing on themselves and their own work, they have decided to foster ill will by denigrating other editors and their work. That is why I've nominated this article for full protection. Hamsacharya dan 00:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"Thanks for playing"

Hanuman Das has now resorted to making threats on my talk page. This evening I have added some reliable references, and have expanded his very poorly sources section on disputed beliefs. I have not reverted anything. Hanuman Das, I implore you to do something productive with your life. Don't take out your hard heart on Yogiraj Gurunath. Leave his page alone, like you promised you would, but have now reneged on for the sake of retaliation. Hamsacharya dan 03:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi HD. I don't think there would be any problem here if you discussed on point. You keep making the assertion that Hanuman Das and his "sockpuppets" are fomenting some type of conspiracy. I don't believe there are any sockpuppets and I don't believe there is any conspiracy. There are some points related to the Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath article that are in dispute. Are you going to discuss them in good faith or not? That is the only topical issue here in my opinion.--Chai Walla 07:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed and rediscussed ad nauseum. If you didn't notice we have 3 archive pages here. You, Baba Louis, and Hanuman Das were at one point confirmed sockpuppets - I only say that to disclose that you three are acting either as one person or as a gang of meatpuppets to promulgate your agenda, and have been doing so since day 1. I will not be bullied on here to accept false claims on this page or any other, nor to remove quality information. I do however, encourage well sourced, verifiable, reliable, truthful, quality information that is in full concert with the strictures of Wikipedia principle and policy - whether it bolsters or weakens the suppositions of an article or assertion. Hamsacharya dan 17:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello HD, For the record allow me to comment that I find your response rather uncivil and this seems to be a typical pattern when you choose not to discuss on point. No one is trying to "bully" you into accepting false claims on any matter. Some people disagree with your edits and are attempting to discuss them with you as per the guidelines of Wikipedia.--Chai Walla 06:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sat Guru

Why is a definition of Sat Guru found here under Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath? This is an article about YGS. It is stated at the start of the article that his devotees consider him a Sat Guru. The ideas related to Sat Guru are better discussed and entered under the article Sat Guru. Let the editors of that page sort out the value of the specific assertions and meanings as presented here. The Sat Guru entry here is out of place in my opinion.--Chai Walla 08:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia states that significant positions held by individuals may be kept on their biographical pages, even if there is a generic article elsewhere. A biographical article in general has that flexibility. As these are significant teachings of Gurunath, they are presented here under the "teachings" section. Hamsacharya dan 15:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello HD, thank you for your comment. Allow me to point out that most of the section under "Sat Guru" is an explicit and idiosyncratic redefinition of the term Sat Guru as per the POV of YGS. This is difficult to assess as a "significant position" as stated in your comment. The point is that a biography remains an unlikely and undesirable place for the redefinition of terms or titles. This is more correctly done under the heading of the article bearing the name, Sat Guru. As it stands, the concept of "Shivapat" appears and is stated as a prerequisite for any person claiming "Sat Guru" status as per the POV of YGS. There is is no citation for this word or concept outside of the autobiography and assertion of YGS. I believe that YGS has created or "coined" the term as it exists no where else. In this sense, a reader may be influenced to believe that the stated definition of Sat Guru as presented in this article is correct and verifiable. This is poor scholarship and the idiosyncratic redefinition of terms in a biography is out of place in any Wikipedia article. Please remove the entry. Thanks--Chai Walla 05:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Notes

1. ^ “The Kriya Yoga which I am giving to the world through you in this nineteenth century,” Babaji told Lahiri Mahasaya, “is a revival of the same science which Krishna gave, millenniums ago, to Arjuna....". Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramhansa Yogananda
2. ^ "Arjuna, in the above stanza, is thus confused at the advice of his guru-preceptor Krishna". Bhagavad Gita Commentaries by Paramhansa Yogananda
3. ^ "So Krishna, the GURU, or the actively awakened Soul, or meditation-born Intuition, comes to aid Self-Control, or Arjuna....". Bhagavad Gita Commentaries by Paramhansa Yogananda
4. ^ "In the Bhagavad Gita, we read many passages where the divine guru Krishna gives chastisement to the prince of devotees, Arjuna.". Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramhansa Yogananda

Differences with traditional views

I am formally asking User:Hamsacharya dan to not change the section until a consensus is reached on the talk page per WP:CON. The current version is close to the twice mediated version, Dan, and you have not discussed it since then. —Hanuman Das 12:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. When you find some common ground on how to proceed and are ready to resume editing without reverting each other's edits, you can place a request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a very necessary step. Hopefully this action will produce some results in favor or resolution. Hamsacharya dan 16:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, I am glad to see that you have protected the version which makes Hamsacharya dan's desperation so readily apparent. If I were him, I'd be highly embarassed to have this version preserved for any length of time. ---Baba Louis 17:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha, ha, Baba Louis. I just told Jossi the opposite on his talk page, but reading Hamsadan's additions, I see that you are right. I will start with a criticism of his first point. I think we can get consensus to remove that right away... —Hanuman Das 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that page protection is only a temporary measure, and does not endorse any specific version, although most people believe that admins always protect the wrong version. See Wikipedia:The_Wrong_Version ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das' - discussion regarding rebuttal to differences with traditional views

• However, the Vairag Nath Panth of the Nath Sampradaya does not adhere to this purported stricture, as householder Shri Narayan Nath is the current head of the Vairag pant

Dan makes a glaring error here. This sentence only makes sense if one assumes that guru = satguru, which is not the case. Naths in general do not consider themselves "satgurus" and there is no eveidence that the individual brought up is considered a satguru by himself or anyone else. He is the lineage guru, but that has no bearing on the satguru issue.—Hanuman Das 17:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan was correcting Hanuman Das glaring errors. No evidence that Subramuniyaswami is a satguru either. No evidence that Shri Narayan Nath is not a satguru. So then, are you just passing judgment prematurely in order to bolster your assertion? Hamsacharya dan 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It says he is right on his site [23], Dan. That's all the evidence YGS has also, simply his claim. —Hanuman Das 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope - YGS provides the verifiable criteria: Shaktipat, Pranapat, and Shivapat. It says so right in this article. Hamsacharya dan 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Criteria which he made up and which nobody else uses. Not objective, sorry. —Hanuman Das 18:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes for consensus:

• Remove - glaring error in logic. Hanuman Das 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - cannot be proven nor disproven by logic. Unless you accept Gurunath's definition of a satguru - one who can give shaktipat, pranapat, and shivapat. Hamsacharya dan 19:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - there is no reason for rebuttals to the differences section. And I agree that there is no logic to this rebuttal. Nath generally don't call themselves "satgurus". ---209.221.144.226 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC) / Baba Louis 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Obviously there is a reason for a rebuttal, since I've stated it. Guru's in general don't call themselves satguru - nath or not. They are satgurus if they are satgurus - householder or not, and whether they call themselves satguru or not. Furthermore, Priyanath, myself, and Shaninath pointed out the many sources that show that satgurus can be householders. This whole "difference" is totally out of line and rests on one modern guru's opinion, whereas the vast majority of literature and precedent rejects it. It's a weak point meant to attract negative attention to this article. Hamsacharya dan 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per the comment above. Also, Sri Yogiraj SatGurunath Siddhanath is called a 'SatGuru' by many of His chelas (particularly those from Punjab) and even friends who have not taken initiation. 'Guru' can mean 'SatGuru' depending on the perspective of the individual in question. These titles are not solely related to the Nath Tradition. Many within the Nath fold and without refer to their chosen spiritual preceptor referring to different 'titles' interchangeably in relation to the context in which they are speaking to or of their SatGuru. In reference, to a comment earlier stating that Nath Gurus rarely initiate householders is thoroughly wrong - for in Nepal there are whole villages that are Naths and they are all householders. Sri Gorakshanath and Matyendranath are inextricably linked to the religio-philosophical tradition of Nepal. Gorakshanath is even the Supreme SatGuru of the world reknowned warriors the Gurkhas and even figures in the Nepalese National Flag. 212.188.244.101 11:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath
  • I don't think anyone has said that Naths rarely initiate householders. However, it is rare for the current lineage-holder to be a householder. In other matters, for Wikipedia purposes it makes no difference if some people use terms indescriminantly. For Hamsadan's point to make sense, he must find a reference that states that Shri Narayan Nath is a satguru. Since I believe that White is the only reference that even mentions him, and it does not give him the title satguru, this sentence must be removed per WP:VERIFY. —Hanuman Das 19:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

---

• However, there are numerous sub-sects of the Nath Sampradaya, each with their own living master. Also, there are innumerable Naths unaffiliated with any particular sub-sect. Yogiraj Gurunath is one such Nath siddha.

Dan here (bolded) makes an uncited assertion. He needs to provide a reference. Every Nath must be initiated, by virtue of which he is associated with the panth or sub-sect of the initiator. This is a truly desperate attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of others. Hanuman Das 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hanuman Das - you have no evidence that a Nath must be associated with a sub-sect. In fact, that's faulty logic - how else do you think sub-sects are created in the first place? In the beginning there was only one Nath sect. Furthermore, original Nath satgurus never considered themselves Naths in the first place - Did Jesus consider himself Christian? Did Buddha, buddhist? No - these religions were developed by their followers. Why don't you learn about the true traditional attitude of Nath's, who go beyond any cast or cult distinctions [24] Hamsacharya dan 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

My favorite line in HD's rebuttal must be, "Furthermore, original Nath satgurus never considered themselves Naths in the first place". Would the suggestion of head scratching amazement at this comment be considered uncivil? I hope not. This one is left wondering what these Nath satgurus considered themselves to be? The Nath Sampradaya has been for at least 1000 years a lineage of initiation passed from Guru to disciple. One does not become a Nath by casual or even prolonged acquantance. One becomes a Nath by direct discpleship and initiation by a qualified Nath who always has a distinct name and identity and often gives a new Nath name to the individual receiving initiation. It has been this way for a very looong time. Very few Naths give initiation to householders who do not take the Sadhu vows. It has happened, but this is very rare and an exceptional case in almost all Nath Sampradayas. The current number of Nath Sampradayas giving householder initiation as a feature of their Sampradaya remain few. All Naths are associated with the Guru who initiates them. These Nath Gurus received initiation themselves from another Nath Guru. This identifies them as a part of or associated with one Sampradaya or another. One may receive the blessing or transmission from a Nath if one is a sincere disciple, but this does not constitute nor should it be construed as the same thing as initiation which is a particular process of Shakti transmission and formal entrance into the Guru Family of which the initiating Nath Guru is a part. Nisargadatta (as mentioned in the comment) was initiated by a specific Nath Guru into the NavNath Sampradaya. Nisargadatta was allowed by his Guru to give out the mantra of the NavNath Sampradaya but was not allowed to appoint a successor, which he did not do. The case was that Nisargadatta was not given Parampara by his Guru who died shortly after initiating Nisargadatta. This is the probable reason why Nisargadatta failed to promote the continuation of his lineage as a discrete Sampradaya. He had been given no authority to do so. Nisargadatta was considered a "Guru" by many disciples and followers and an enlightened master, but I know of no instance where Nisargadatta claims to be a Nath Guru. He did claim to be initiated by Siddharameshwar Maharaj and was a devoted disciple until he died. Claims that Nisargadatta was the successor of his Guru appear to have surfaced after the death of Nisargadatta. To my knowledge, these claims were never made by Nisargadatta himself.--Chai Walla 09:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

UNCIVIL??!! That's hilarious... Are you so attached to your titles that you feel sub-par without them? True Naths think nothing of titles. They are Nath by their very being - Nath means "Lord of Cosmic Consciousness". Can you claim that you are such a Nath? No. You consider yourself a Nath by succession. Or do you think you're a lord? You certainly call yourself one. What gall... and you think Gurunath has a lot of gall to call himself the titles Yogiraj Sat Gurunath Siddhnath? At least he lives up to his titles. Hamsacharya dan 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re your "True Nath" comment. That is a known logical fallacy called the No true Scotsman fallacy. You are basing all your opinions on a single person who claims to be, but probably isn't, a Nath. You have no idea what other Naths may or may not do, and wear blinders which you use to keep yourself from finding out. Whadda maroon! :-) :-) :-) —Hanuman Das 19:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes for consensus:

• Remove - conclusion depends on an uncited and unlikely assertion. Hanuman Das 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Hanuman Das' conclusion is proven false per no evidence and faulty logic. My conclusion is supported by evidence cited. Hamsacharya dan 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - per Hanuman Das, I don't think anyone has documented "unassociated" Naths. That can't be, since to be a Nath requires lineage. ---209.221.144.226 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC) / Baba Louis 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Unlikely assertion. --216.39.162.241 09:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - G.W. Briggs did. What was Matyendranaths lineage tree, pray tell? Hamsacharya dan 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Look it up. --Chai Walla 09:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - That's good advice - maybe you should take it. His guru was Lord Shiva himself. How are you going to explain parampara there? The Nath Siddhas are an entirely different entity than Naths by succession. A Nath Siddha lives up to his name - he is a Lord of Cosmic Consciousness - that is the state of his beingness - he is justified to be called a Nath. A Nath by succession hangs onto his paltry rules and titles for dear life hoping to one day break the bonds which tie him to body consciousness. Hamsacharya dan 15:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - as per Hamsacharya Dan. Evidence is duly provided from traditional texts. These eyes see no attempt to 'pull wool' on anyones eyes. If any thing is pulling textual sources. Such a comment reveals that these articles are trying to be used for alterior purposes when there are comments to the effect of 'he should be embarrassed', 'hiding things' and 'pulling wool'. It is supposed to be an Wikipedia article on an individual not an apparently glorified debate on the subject in question. There are points that are valid both for and against - however, the fact that the only editors that are clashing horns with Hamsacharya Dan are from another Nath Order that is claimed to be verified by tradition demonstrates the futility of debate in achieving a suitable nPOV status on the points. If one you were to publish a book or find reliable sources that show an authorative figure (ie. a Nath Guru) within any Nath sub-sect addressing or refuting Sri Yogiraj SatGurunath's 'titles', 'claims' or lineage - then we shall have a more weighted and concrete POV to counteract the intitial claims. Othewise it is just the POV, albeit with 'references' and 'facts', of users of Wikipedia. In reference, to a comment earlier stating that Nath Gurus rarely initiate householders is thoroughly wrong - for in Nepal there are whole villages that are Naths and they are all householders. Sri Gorakshanath and Matyendranath are inextricably linked to the religio-philosophical tradition of Nepal. Gorakshanath is even the Supreme SatGuru of the world reknowned warriors the Gurkhas and even figures in the Nepalese National Flag. 212.188.244.101 12:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath
  • • CommentHello Shaninath. I don't think any Nath Guru would take the trouble to refute YGS's titles, claims, or titles in a book. Most Nath Gurus could care less what other people say or do. Private conversation may be another matter, but that would be between the Guru and those discussing the subject or asking for input about the subject from the Guru. In the case of YGS, someone decided that Wikipedia is the place to promote his story and teachings. It was explained that a private website is the place for that, but someone may have misunderstood what they were getting into. As for the Nepalese householder Naths, yes I believe you are correct. In my paragraph I should have qualified my statement that it is rare for Naths of a Sadhu Sampradaya to give initiation to householders. I continue to believe however that there are only a few "Sampradayas" of householder Naths. If this information is incorrect, it would be a fine thing to draw reference to these lines and submit the information to the Nath article. It would also be helpful if you created an account and logged in with it. When administrators look at various "users" they sometimes depricate the input of those who do not log in. The reason is that it is often the case that such a person is not interested in Wikipedia, but only defending a certain POV related to a specific article. --Chai Walla 01:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

---

• The different, truly traditional ancient texts including Lalita Sahasranama (Brahmanda Purana) and Skanda Purana, Goraksha Gita, Maharth Manjari, Goraksha Stotra, Shree Nath Tirthawali, Shiva Mahapurana have referred to Gorakshanath variously as Lord Shiva, the divine trinity (trimurti), or even beyond the consciousness of the trimurti, as the Shastric stories portray.

This and all the pendant points are immaterial to and do not refute the fact to which they are applied. There have been many incarnations in Hindu mythology. Krishna, Rama, etc. No one denies that the body the deities inhabited was a mortal one, and simply saying that Gorakhnath was rumored to be an incarnation of Shiva does not prove anything. I'm sure the info would be appreciated in the Gorakshanath article, though. Hanuman Das 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. 1. I am clearly demonstrating true tradition by virtue of citing ancient source texts, rather than modern pedantic redactions. These are obviously not, as you put, rumors - you have just proven that A. you're POV is clearly against traditional texts, and B. You lack a sense of academic discrimination as to what constitutes a reliable source versus weak tertiary sources. 2. I am also demonstrating that Gorakshanath is considered by tradition to be immortal. Thus citation of his mortal remains is immaterial to your assertion that he is different from Mahavatar Babaji. Furthermore, it bolsters my counterassertion that Gorakshanath and Mahavatar Babaji are the same, both immortal, and both equated with Shiva. Hamsacharya dan 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes for consensus:

• Remove - point is meaningless in context. Hanuman Das 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - directly addresses the false assertions of Hanuman Das and colleagues. Anybody up for some Haagen Daas icecream? Hamsacharya dan 19:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove - everyone is an incarnation of God. These objections mean nothing and are "original research" since no one has used them to rebut the mortal remains of Gorakhnath before, so far as I know. If you can cite someone who has, more power to you. ---209.221.144.226 00:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC) / Baba Louis 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mortal remains are not at issue. What is at issue is whether mortal remains demonstrate a traditional view which is at odds with article. My truly traditional and ancient sources cite information which clearly and definitively refutes this bizarre and irrelevent logic. Hamsacharya dan 04:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - but not everybody has awakened to the true potential of that realisation that all are an incarnation of God. The mortal remains of Gorakhnath are not a true point of contention for it has been shown through other 'claims', namely Sri Yoganandaji and Christ's disciples, that an advanced practioner of Yoga, who has perfected themselves and achieved Immortal status, can return from the ether at will with little or no effort whatsoever (see Chapter on 'The Ressurrection of Sri Yukteswar' and the King James Bible). It is noteworthy to mention that many great saints have reappeared apparently in the 'flesh' after their bodily remains have been put in a tomb (ie. Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi and Neem Karoli Baba). Also, the fact that the musical tomb of Gorakhshanath is cited in two very different regions in India demonstrates the weak point that is trying to be made - since it is another 'claim' against another 'claim' that can go on indefinitely, thereby constituting no real unified point that refutes anything. If one were to go to India and speak to some more individuals you'll find a whole plethora of other places of His resting place. The fact remains that the validation by tradition attitude as been in effect for many years and anyone in a particular sect/sub-sect or region will invariably place things that are sacred, ie. the tomb of Gorakshanath, the place where Sri Krishna lived and even the language He spoke, in the framework of their ideology or historical tradition.212.188.244.101 12:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Inappropriate Votes - proposed policy does not requre adherance. Vote is meaningless unless policy is set.

This vote may be done to collect opinions, but it is not reflective of policy. Thus these are just opinions, and not a vote for particular action. Hamsacharya dan 18:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate article structure

Per Wikipedia guidelines on criticism, the criticism section should not be debased with refutations. See Wikipedia:Criticism.

• "Criticism sections should not violate Article structures which can imply a view. These sections must not be created to marginalize criticism or critics of the article's topic or imply that this criticism is not true while the more positive claims in the rest of the article are."

Due to this principle, I believe that all of Hamsadan's refutations should be intergrated into the article. A separate critcism section belongs to the editors of that section and should not be modified except per discussion on the talk page. The supporters of the main view should integrate all their supporting statements and viewpoints in to the main section of the article. As they do so, the editors of the criticism section may indeed feel compelled to remove point if they become untenable. —Hanuman Das 15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes for keeping a "pure" criticism section:

• Support - all points supportive of the "main view" of the subject belong in the main section of the article. Criticism should not be (lamely attempted to be) refuted in place in the criticism section. —Hanuman Das 15:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as per Hanuman Das. If there can be no compromise or resolution to the conflicting positions, then a pure criticism section would be appropriate to allow the reader to understand the issues involved and make up there own mind.--Chai Walla 20:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - all counter-counter arguments should be removed from the section as they are intended to marginalize criticism. Integrate these supporting points into the main body. I am happy to remove criticism when support in the main body reaches a threshold which in my view makes the criticism meaningless. ---Baba Louis 21:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Don't Support - This is an inappropriate vote- 1. That section still needs work. That is "proposed policy", not actual policy yet. When it is finished, I believe it will include caveats for inappropriate criticism which violates NPOV and original research. 2. Since Baba Louis and Chai Walla started out as puppets of Adityanath (Hanuman Das), I don't think their votes count here. They are a wikipedia gang - called the Mahendranath gang. Do you think Dadaji would be proud of your behavior? Hamsacharya dan 18:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - no vote is inappropriate, it is called working toward consensus (WP:CON), something that as of yet you have shown not the least glimmer of understanding of what it might mean. And all our votes count. We've all proven to you that we are separate individuals by signing with our geographically separated IP addresses. If you want to discount our votes, go request another checkuser. We are confident that they will find that there is no sockpuppeting going on. —Hanuman Das 19:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Refocusing Discussion

Please bear with me while I take the time and trouble to comment on a few points which I fear are being lost here. 1.- This is the Wikipedia and an encyclopedia. It has its own rules, values and limitations. As editors we do well to work inside the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia or remain silent. It remains a given fact that this format has limitations. It is outside the purview of this discussion to point out these limitations, it is our task to discuss in good faith and work inside them. 2.- This remains the discussion page for the subject, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, only. It is not a comparative religion or comparative God-man chat room. Kindly focus discussion to the points at hand directly connected with the subject. 3.- Do not assume bad faith in the intention of any editor. Simply refocus the discussion to the points at hand or in dispute. Please feel free to suggest possible compromises or solutions to disputed points. If your points require elucidation and long paragraphs, please point out explicitly how your views effect the specific issues under discussion. Thanks. --Chai Walla 21:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have always assumed and it is my view, that names and titles are relative human constructs. Names and titles are associated with any individual for some reason or cause. These names and titles can be and are often independent of any individuals actual spiritual attainment or lack thereof. To state, what I had believed to be a widely held sentiment, if any individual is known, for example, as "Guru Maharaj" or "Clueless Nincompoop", it makes no difference to that person's actual spiritual attainment in any way. Names and titles are words which may or may not reflect the "truth" relative to a subject. What these titles do suggest however, is how the subject sees themselves or how other people view them and why. Related to any subject is the reason or history of how names and titles are associated with that subject. Allow me to use as an example, a person whose name was brought up in discussion by Shaninath; Vimilananda the Aghori. Vimilananda was one of many names attached to this subject. It was the sole name chosen by the author Robert Svoboda to portray the subject in a number of books. This was and is not the legal name of the subject and this is well know. It is also known that the family of the subject did not want Vimilananda's legal name known to the public as a privacy issue. No embarrassment here and nothing unclear. Vimilananda was also known in English translation as, "King among Exaggerators". Again, no embarrassment but a clue to the understanding of a few of the more colorful stories he often told. Vimilananda also claimed to be an Aghori. He had no initiation into any Aghori Sampradaya nor did he claim otherwise. He stated that the form of approach he practiced was "Aghora" and made no apologies for it. In this way, the position of Vimilananda relative to names and claims is quite clear. There is no need to question these claims as the position is quite clear. These facts, in and of themselves do not make Vimilananda a greater or lesser spiritual figure, nor do they effect or contaminate his degree of spiritual attainment demonstrated in his lifetime. In contrast, the facts related to the names and claims of YGS remain very unclear. Some of the controvery here is directly related to this lack of clarity. We need to determine the answers to the questions raised regarding YGS or come to an agreement as how to handle the lack of them.--Chai Walla 22:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If a few succinct sentences cannot eludidate an objection, I think we need to apply Occam's razor - the person with the shortest and most succinct argument is most likely right and the other may be attempting to use obfuscation simply to confuse the issue and get their way... —Hanuman Das 21:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse the longish comment on the grounds that I felt some clarification was needed on points already raised. I believe that some of the acrimony expressed by a couple of editors is due to a perception that others editors are attempting a "hatchet job" on the subject. I don't and have never believed this to be the case, but I'm hopeful that clarifying the distinction between the disputed points and the subject's himself was needed. The point being that the spiritual attainment of any individual cannot be proven or disproven in so many words, nor is this the issue or dispute here. I think Occam's razor is a fine idea.--Chai Walla 23:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with 'longish' comments. And 'a few succinct sentences' are not better or worse in the field of a discussion - length does not figure - but the points being raised in question are what is most important to reflect upon and understand. Again, both of you are trying to present yourselves as the most knowlegeable on what is considered the best argument and what is considered a fact and a valid reference. This one is not entirely satisfied with some of the points made and it is this ones right to enter the field of debate and address it. How do you know that the Aghori Vimalanandaji wasn't initiated? He may have been and it is simply not mentioned in the books that have been published. He was known by many and Sri Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath also met Him and knows His real name and family and what-not.

• • • • Note: 'Vimalananda' in no way whatsoever translates into English as 'King of Exaggerators'. There are countless swamis and swaminis that have been blessed by the name or a derivative - what an insult to all of them! You have haphazardly read the book and confused things totally or have listened to twisted words from an unknowing mouth. 'Vimal' may be translated as 'Pure' and 'Ananda' as 'Bliss' and together 'the Bliss of Purity'. He adopted this title purely to give joy to His mother when He returned from His wanderings as an ascetic - for His mother's name was 'Vimal' - it is an ode to His Mother from His POV - Jai Ma!!! Vimalananda was known by many other 'titles'/'names' such as Aghora Nath (Lord/Master of Aghora), Shah-e-mauj (King of Bliss) and the one which you refer to is Bandel-e-aftaab (Sun among exaggerators) - a title which was given by a person of a very foul mouthed earthy good-natured nature. All this info and more can be found in 'Aghora: At the Left Hand of God' (p. 31, old edition) by Dr. Robert Svoboda.

I also have mentioned that it shouldn't be a glorified debate on the person in question. But it is important to include other 'God-men' and comparative religions and sources for that is what gives a reference on how to present an article on Wikipedia. I think Occam's razor should be applied to the article and not to peoples points and arguments in order to keep it is as nPOV as possible. Yes, this not a platform to propogate teachings and the apparent status of any individual and it is something that this one doesn't personally don't 'like' (as in referring to HH Dalai Lama by His birth name) but that is another issue. It would be much easier on the eyes if the article would be stripped down to the bare minimum and sources added only as the factual references are sourced - but even then not to propogate anything or diminish other 'Gurus' or lineages, traditions or whatever. Look at all my entries and try and identify a POV. Jai Buddha Purnima!!! Om Mani Padme Hum!!!213.106.1.25 11:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Why don't you guys stop talking in generalities and get to the point. You're all failing Occam's razor by not speaking to the point. What do each of you guys (read: Hanuman Das, Baba Louis, and Chai Walla) want specifically in order for you to be satisfied with this page and henceforth cease vandalizing it? Each one of you please post your specific demands clearly point by point. Please specify your demands as clearly defined actions, and not general concepts or trends. Hamsacharya dan 19:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

That's very simple, Dan. We want you to leave in the criticism section, and leave it alone. DIscuss on the talk page, and let us modify as we see fit to attempt to address your specific issues. Integrate your supporting statements into the main body of the article. What you are doing is stupid and makes your guru look worse than the differences section as it was. You look desperate and idiotic, and you apparently can't even tell. Stop calling us vandals for our edits; we are not vandals any more than you are when you remove our work (actually, that is vandalism - you are the primary vandal here). Quit being such an egomaniac that you feel you must judge, criticize and remove other editors work. Do you like it when your work is removed? —Hanuman Das 19:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let us not toss insults back and forth and become tossers. We are all shadow puppets, vandals, desperate and idiotic to some degree at some moments in our lives. As the Great Babaji has said "There is no Saint without a Past and there is no Sinner without a Future". There is nothing to be ashamed about or get overly upset. Let us move forward and work chiselling an article that is as satisfactory to users of Wikipedia and surfers alike. The high tensions concerning the Gurunath article have mellowed, it's just a few steps further to get relative shanti in this article as well. As is proposed let us try and give it a go once again. Removing any editors (who is logged in) work that without either a succinct to the point or extensive exhaustive discussion should be avoided because the nature of Wikipedia being relatively open the edit war will begin in a trice. I don't think Sri Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's reputation depends on this Wikipedia article (and discussions therein because they are inextricably connected to the article) or any actions of another other than Himself. So the demands have been made let the truce begin. Ram Ram Ram! 212.188.244.101 21:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Shaninath, I much agree with your sentiment and also would like to expand on the possibility you mentioned before of "stripping down" the article so conflicting views are at a minimum or none at all. Having said that, I would point out that this has been attempted on numerous occassions by the editors here and all of the changes have been reverted back by one editor with charges of "vandalism" and no discussion on point to the changes made. So at the moment I would suggest some kind of "pole" may be in order to see if a "stripping down" is an option or not. Some editors may not want to allow certain points or claims into the article for reasons they may have already explained at great length. If this fails, I fear we are looking at the inclusion of a "pure criticism" section. Frankly, I'm more comfortable with a streamlining of the article. People interested in the subject, (YGS) can go to his website or public appearances and learn more about him and his teachings in the way he presents them. If the "stripping down" cannot be accomplished, then I insist that valid opposing views be a clear feature of this article.--Chai Walla 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If your colleauges (Baba Louis and Hanuman Das) agree fully with you Chai Walla, then why don't y'all with Shaninath start a stripped down version on Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/temp. As long as its factual, I'll happily agree to replacement of the current article with that version. Hamsacharya dan 07:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Sidhoji Rao Shitole? That is, in my opinion, a near-perfect WP bio. The one thing that I would add, but will leave to you, is a mention that YGS is an author along with a list of his published works. —Hanuman Das 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good step in the right direction. This one proposes a stripped down section on the 'Sat Guru' possibly a summarised paragraph of Sri Yogiraj SatGurunath's definition and 'claims' and a link to the fuller elaboration of this one the Hamsa Yoga Sangh website and to the Wikipedia article on 'Sat Guru'. Also, the Poetry section could possibly include maybe the one poem that is a dedication to Shiv-Gorakshanath Babaji, because it is slightly more relevant to highlight His assertion of being connected to Gorakshanath and the Naths. Other poetry or poetic prose may be linked to the Hamsa Yoga Website or anywhere it is on the Net and the books of poetry that are published. Similarly a shorter section on His experiences with Raja Sundarnath Maharaj with a referenced note about differing claims at the bottom of page of the article. It is much easier on the eyes if 'criticisms' or other 'claims' that are at variance with Sri Yogiraj SatGurunath's 'claims' be put at the end of the article or addressed in the seperate articles on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we have a lines of critique interspersed into the main body of an article that is trying to present an individual as they see themselves and the world/universe. That expression should be given in full with little infringement and (again) the more dogmatic traditional views in another section at the end or at the top of the discussion page. As is stands now alot of the material in the article is better suited in the discussion section and that is because the discussion phase is being circumvented. As per Hamsacharya Dan's suggestion I'll give my input as best as I can. We can overcome this, even if we don't fully agree with each other, provided the steps are made to transcend.213.106.1.25 12:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

Wikipedia policy on criticism in biographies

Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors Reprinted below:

Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors

Many persons who are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate voice to critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view, and if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article.

Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from reliable sources regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, or other generalizations. something I have been saying from the beginning

Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies warrant criticism, whereas a section of criticisms of an individual is almost certain to result in contention. For example, to have a criticism section in the article Communism is encyclopedic, but a critique of communism on the article of each individual communist figure is not. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Wikipedia is not a place for editors to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs, or their orientations, nor the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view. Strive to produce an NPOV article all sides can live with, if not love.

This is why I've never agreed with your critcism section. And wikipedia policy agrees with me. You need to demonstrate a reliable source which directly addresses YGS, not his beliefs. Hamsacharya dan 17:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this has been my objection all along. That you are using WP as a soapbox to promote the unverified and unverifable claims of the subject. I've bolded the succinct policy against this above. If all claims not verifiable by a third party account were removed and this was reduced to a strictly neutral biography which does not attempt to promote the teachings of the subject, there would be no need for an alternate POV section. —Hanuman Das 17:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Which claims Hanuman Das? As it states here (2nd sentence of "Opinions of Critics.."), it is appropriate for a biography to include pertinent beliefs. But it is not appropriate to criticize those beliefs. In Shri Gurudev Mahendranath, you claim right off the bat that he's an Avadhut. What proof do you have of that? Hamsacharya dan 08:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There must be a distinction between 'promotion' and 'presentation' and it will inevitably be difficult to draw the line between the two without painstaking analysis over the wording. Looking at the article on Edgar Cayce for instance there seems to have been (looking at the discussion section of the article) an ongoing process of chiselling it to an acceptable degree - albeit that this article had/has the advantage of having more editors included into the fold. It would be useful right now to list the 'claims not verified or verifiable by a third party'. I know you may have done so before but for the sake of not being misunderstood please list them again. Then we can get started on the edit that Hamsacharya Dan has proposed. Note: It also might be quite interesting to add that Sri Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath was a semi-professional swimmer and weight builder - in his Childhood/Education background tab. Another addition to this may be a quote I reference earlier about Yogiraj Gurunath's childhood connection to Shiv Gorakshanath Babaji via the Nath Temple at His residence in Gwalior. More info on how He was blessed by many saints to propogate Yoga around the world, namely; Sri Anandamayee Ma and Shiva Bala Yogi. I have a copy of 'Wings to Freedom' and there are links to His interviews from the Hamsa Yoga Sangh website. I'll go through them and dig out some useful passages. Already these eyes have just fell on some as the book opened. "During my travels in ashrams, jungles and the Himalayas, I interacted with the whole cross-section of saints, yogis and spiritual Masters of India. Amongst these, the contribution of the Nath yogis towards the spiritual legacy of India was remarkable, expecially in Divine and Self-Realizaton, Raja and Hatha Yoga. It was to these forms of yogic practice and philosophy that I was most drawn." (p.66 'Wings to Freedom' old edition). Sri Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath then goes on to put forth some interesting 'claims' such as the Buddha and Mahvira were actually Naths and formed their own schools and philosophy (which Naths are free and entitled to do). So, I think a section or some lines showing Sri Yogiraj Gurunath's View on the Nath Siddha Tradition or something of the like may be useful. Interestingly, I read an interview by Him recently saying that His views and practices were much closer to mysticism than religion - will have to try and find the interview. Hari Om!!!213.106.1.25 22:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

NPOV

Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath/temp ...satisfies Priyanath in the naming debate. This version has been claimed by Hanuman Das to be NPOV. If the naming convention can be agreed upon this may be a solution. There are no criticisms whatsoever in this article. As the subject asked that his page be removed to avoid controversy, I think this non-critical and NPOV article is the most fitting solution.--Chai Walla 07:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

My thought as well. However, it appears that Stifle has ended the AfD on Sidhoji Rao Shitole on the condition that it be listed on requested moves to simply be moved to replace this article. I have done so, so rather than confuse the issue with two separate votes, let's just vote over at the Sidhoji Rao Shitole talk page. —Hanuman Das 12:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As it stands Yogiraj_Gurunath_Siddhanath/temp seems a fine solution in that is sufficiently stripped down to avoid criticism. I have made some notes from the 'Wings to Freedom' book and interviews to support various 'claims' that were challenged earlier. It does state that Sri Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath was empowered by Mahavatar Babaji to serve humanity through Shivapath, Shaktipath and Pranapath - this later becomes the criteria that is put forth to form His definition of a SatGuru. It also clearly states that for Him, Babaji is Shiv-Gorakshanath Babaji due to previous samskaras - past life associations, however, for another person Babaji may be identified with another Diety or Divine personage from the past. Clearly it is stated that in Shri Yogiraj Gurunath's relatively limited view He could only comprehend Shiva. So there are no absolute claims about Babaji being only Shiva-Gorakshanath by Sri Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath and all the entries in the present article that give references to attempt to show Babaji was connected to Sri Krishna or another Divine entity don't really stand as a criticism but rather more like a point of interest like - 'it's interesting to note so-and-so believes/says/claims Babaji to be such-and-such'. But, perhaps, it is better to keep it as is for now and add more 'factual' info as it arises that may eloborate or correct what is there already. As far as I know Hamsa Yoga Sangh may have been founded earlier since I have pamphlet that looks like it is from at least the 80's but I'll have to check with some senior Hamsas. It mentions in the book that He was already teaching Kriya Yoga in the 1970's, but that doesn't mean the Sangh was founded however. So, basically Shaninath feels it is good step in the transcendent direction. Let's beat down conflict and negative feelings/attitudes within Yoga circles and turn our energies to some other matters in the world that urgently need our attention. Hari Om!19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)Shaninath

I'm fine with all this. I have two options 1. Take this to ArbCom or 2. Live with the stripped down version. In order to not waste more of my own time, I will live with the stripped down version as long as it remains NPOV. Hamsacharya dan 02:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! This is just the sort of information that is needed. I am particularly impressed that YGS specifies that the identification of Mahavatar Babaji and Shiv-Gorakhsha Babaji is really personal to him. That makes much more sense than an absolute for-everyone identification and is a position which lends support to YGS advanced spiritual state. I had a feeling all along that we were dealing more with Hamsacharya dan's fixed interpretation of YGS's beliefs rather than the more expansive beliefs of YGS himself. It's still better to leave some of these details out rather than have them misunderstood as absolutes, I think. Please go over to Talk:Sidhoji Rao Shitole to register your position, as several other editors have already placed their votes there. —Hanuman Das 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

He specifies that the experience that he had of the "Eternal being" was such that he identified him as Gorakshanath per his past samskaras (past life memories). Anybody else who experienced Gorakshanath in a past life would also realize that this is the same consciousness. He also clearly states that Mahavatar Babaji is the same as Gorakshanath and the same being that he experienced in the Himalayas. It's personal to him in that he has made this connection due to his past samskaras with his experiences with Gorakshanath. Others who had not had experiences with Gorakshanath would not make this connection. The word "Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji" is an amalgamation of the three names "Shiva" "Gorakshanath" and "Mahavatar Babaji" in order to unite them to demonstrate that they are the same consciousness. Krishna is the same and yet not the same per the quote from the Shiva Mahapurana. Hamsacharya dan 02:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care, Dan. That's your interpretation, that's all. But it's too many words. You can't really communicate anything very important by them. Direct experience is the only reality. —Hanuman Das 04:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reality is the only reality. Experience is an illusion. :-) On a slightly different note...it's hard to fathom, but at the level of consciousness, Haagen Daas and I are one. Oy!! Hamsacharya dan 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I'd advise editing Sidhoji Rao Shitole rather than Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/temp. The former is the one that will likely be moved into place to replace the current article. The reason? Only that article has the full edit history including the name of the user who created it. The temp article was cut & pasted by Chai Walla and since the edit history is incomplete, it should be deleted and the Sidhoji Rao Shitole article moved. —Hanuman Das 22:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that the edit history of this page not be modified. That is why a redirect is in order for that page (per my vote), and that is why I am requesting that you edit on the temp page. When the temp page is complete, it will be in order to replace the text in this article with that text. That is my request - I do not want the edit history of this page, nor any of its contents to be deleted. The Sidhoji Rao Shitole page should simply be redirected. Hamsacharya dan 23:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan, per Wikipedia rules, no artcle, temp or not, can be moved by cut & paste. It may only be moved by the move function which keeps the edit history. This article, along with its edit history, will be deleted in order to accomplish that move. That's just the way it works. —Hanuman Das 00:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)