Talk:Mahavatar Babaji/Archive 1

message: Sockpuppeting abuse is banned by Wikipedia policy (see WP:SOCK).  This is punishable by long-term blocking, or even being banned from wikipedia for good.  Hamsacharya dan 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already done so.  CheckUser sysop  has confirmed that Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla are sockpuppets, as well as NoToFrauds/TroyVaughn/82.15.17.152   --Hamsacharya dan 20:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppeting Policy Reminder 

message: Everyone should be aware that User:Hamsacharya dan is not an administrator and that he should use proper channels rather than blanket warnings if he believes there is any abuse occuring. —Adityanath 05:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already done so.  CheckUser sysop  has confirmed that Adityanath/Baba Louis/Chai Walla are sockpuppets, as well as NoToFrauds/TroyVaughn/82.15.17.152   --Hamsacharya dan 20:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-admin reminder

message: 1. Moved the Hariakhan Baba paragraph above Post-Yogananda Claims. According to that entry Hariakhan Baba taught from 1860 (before Paramahansa Yogananda was born) to 1924 (before the publication of the Autobiography of a Yogi in 1946). People accepted and revered Hariakhan Baba as the Babaji since pre-Yogananda times. The timing of his appearance also coincides with Lahiri Mahasaya's Kriya Yoga initiation from Babaji (1861).
2. Corrected a minor spelling error from Hari Dasa to Hari Dass.
3. Added Roy Eugene Davis' name and book as support for the Mahavatar Babaji/Hariakhan Baba theory. Basically,  to show that there is someone from the lineage of the author of Autobiography of a Yogi who agrees with Dass and (Mahendra) Baba's conclusion. Roy Eugene Davis was ordained by Paramahansa Yogananda himself in 1951. So, for someone like him to agree that this Hariakhan Baba is the same as the Mahavatar Babaji mentioned by his Master and venerated by all legitimate kriyabans from the Lahiri Lineage is not a light matter.
4. Added Sidhoji Rao Shithole's LEGAL and PROPER name.
No To Frauds 11:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edit of the Hariakhan Baba paragraph, with the added information about Roy Davis, does add to the information about Hariakhan Baba. But it still deserves to be back in Post-Yogananda Claims, as Baba Louis properly did. The book about Hariakhan Baba was written in 1975. Even though he was purportedly alive in Lahiri Mahasaya's time, the claims that he was the same as Mahavatar Babaji didn't appear until long after Yogananda's writings - thus it's a Post-Yogananda claim.Priyanath 05:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yogananda first began mentioning Babaji in the early 1930's (1930- Super Advanced Course Lesson 4), and telling parts of the Babaji story in 1937 (magazine articles in 1937 tell Babaji's story). Too many people seem to conveniently 'imply' too many things. If there was something verbatim published before 1930, that might be different. Priyanath 16:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have a copy of an original SAC. I've seen the original. It is unarguably not just 1930's, but specifically "1930". I'm guessing that Kessinger's is fine, too. A publisher reprinting out-of-print books depends on accuracy - they don't seem like a half-baked outfit. SRF wouldn't accept it as authentic because they don't like people having the earlier lessons, on the open market yet, so they are probably just trying to discourage people from buying it. Yogananda didn't create Babaji, but he is the most reliable authority who has written at length, in my opinion. Is there written material about Babaji published before 1930 that is clearly about Mahavatar Babaji, and not just implied, or not just the opinion of someone like YGS? Or that directly talks about Lahiri Mahasaya's guru Babaji? Surely if there was something like that, it could be mentioned along with the other 'buyer beware' Babaji claims, maybe in its own separate 'Other Claims' category. I don't believe that Roy Davis is an absolute authority on Mahavatar Babaji. Which other disciples of Yogananda support Davis's claims, if any? Priyanath 05:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Hariakhan Babaji belong below the Claims heading. Perhaps he should be moved up. I am not sure of the relative dates, myself. Adityanath 06:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit 

message: There is absolutely no sense in adding Sidhoji Rao Shitole's name and material in this article. So what if Shitole claims to have met Babaji? Hundreds of people claimed to have met Babaji. Why would a mere claim to have met Babaji qualify someone to be included in an encyclopedic article? What did Shitole actually add to the information about Mahavatar Babaji that is already there? Nothing! If an article states that a chimpanzee is a monkey do we add the name of every single person who says the same thing? According to Mr. A a chimpanzee is a monkey. Another person Mr. B claims that he have personally seen a chimpanzee and says that it is a monkey. A certain Mr. C from State, Country wrote a book "Banana of Freedom" in that book he categorically proclaimed that a chimpanzee is a monkey! Is this how we are supposed to join minds in creating an encyclopedic article?
Adding Shitole's name, the name of his book and excerpt from the book does not enrich (add anything material or relevant) to the article Mahavatar Babaji. It only furthers the personal interest of Shitole and his cult. If Einstein would debate with the bum on the street, it would only benefit the bum and not Einstein, because the bum will be popular! This is what we are doing here with Shitole, we are making him popular by sticking his name in an article about a legendary figure who is actually venerated by hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world. We are giving Shitole free advertisement worth thousands of dollars and he is giving us his non-authoritative non-essential completely immaterial and irrelevant words in return! What a bargain!
No To Frauds 17:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NoToFrauds, I believe that the first paragraph under 'Post-Yogananda Claims...' qualifies YGS's claims sufficiently, especially 'Some of these stories conflict with the details in Autobiography of a Yogi, and some contradict each other. There are different opinions on whether these stories refer to the Mahavatar Babaji that Yogananda wrote about.' I also think that YGS, as much as I have doubts about his claims, has enough of a following, minority though it is, that it should be here. I don't have the time right now to get into a revert war here, so I hope that Fire Star's edit will be maintained. Priyanath 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brother, you are a legitimate kriyaban why would you let the article about Mahavatar Babaji be bastardized like this? Don't you believe in Babaji anymore? Can you give me even one logical convincing rationale on why you believe the pre-Shitole Mahavatar Babaji article NEEDS Shitole's name, book and claims for it to be complete? Because that is exactly what all of these agreeing and compromising means, that the article was incomplete without the inclusion of Shitole's name, book and claims. --No To Frauds 23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the article is complete without any of the Post-Yogananda claims. In fact, I don't believe any of them. If this was my own personal Babaji webpage, I would remove all of them. But it's not my page. So these other claims that come along now and then are qualified and questioned by the introduction to the Post-Yogananda Claims. That's sufficient for me. Priyanath 00:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed All References to Shitole Until A Consensus is Made 

message: Anyone objective care to comment?
:In light of the claims about Mahavatar Babaji that have come about after the publication of Yogananda's landmark exposition Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath, believed by his disciples and devotees to be a modern Himalayan Nath Siddha and Living Master, and to have been transformed by Babaji's presence and grace in his early life, has made it part of his work and teachings to clarify this lofty being's origins and essence.  His unique perspective is readily available can be found in his book Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji and the Himalayan Yogis or in person at one of many satsangs he holds all over the world for sincere seekers.
* Is this article about Mahavatar Babaji or this Yogiraj fellow?
**Babaji, I thought. I've bolded the non pertinent material above... Chai Walla
* What's with "lofty?"
**It's unnecessary. Being doesn't need to be capitalized either. And needs an apostrophe. The whole thing is rather awkward. Chai Walla
* Since the book isn't being quoted, can't it just be listed as a reference?
**That's where I'd look for references. Chai Walla
* Any other comments?
**Doesn't need to say so much about Yogiraj. Doesn't he have an article of his own? Needs to say more about Yogiraj's ideas and views about Babaji. What makes his views any different from the preceding fellows? Sounds like more of the same-old, same-old, to me. So far, it doesn't seem unique at all - struck. Chai Walla
---Baba Louis 05:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I've taken out most of the information on Yogiraj, and just write his name to cite the reference to the text.  I HAD written more IN THE PAST about his ideas and views Chai Walla but other editors want to see LESS, rather than MORE like you are requesting.  So, I'm caught between a rock and a hard place.  Please see the new edit which is much reworded. Hamsacharya dan 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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

message: That version by Adityanath is already perfect. We will not let the article on Mahavatar Babaji be tarnished by the personal propaganda of con artist Shitole and his "neuroscientist":) bliss bunny.
No To Frauds 14:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored to the 01:28, 9 March 2006 Version by Adityanath 

message: Hello Mr. Priyanath,
Thank you for opening up for discussion.  Yes I agree, as I have said on Kriya Yoga talk page, that Yogananda's book is the landmark text, and presumably the first english written text about Babaji.  I also agree that most English writing since its publication are, in effect, in response to the writings by Yogananda or in response to claims by others.  Also, it is true, it is impossible to tell what is factual and what is false.  I have included the text from Yogiraj's book because nobody has written at such length and with such veracity, with historical references that have context as well as archeological correlates (which I go into more below), about the nature and essence of Mahavatar Babaji. Not even Yogananda wrote as lucidy about Babaji as Gurunath.  
Also, regarding Babaji shedding bodies vs. being ever the same - you must understand what that means:  If you'd taken the time to read Gurunath's text, you would see that Babaji has taken many forms over the past several thousand years - Gorakshanath, Kal Agni Nath, Shiva Nagaraj (although not the Babaji Nagaraj of Govindan).  This does not mean that he is not ever the same - if you read the section in Yogananda's book about Anandamoyi Ma, you will see that she has also said that she is ever the same, and yet has taken birth, has been a small child, and grown into an adult woman, and then has passed on.  Hence, "being ever the same" refers to something deeper than physical garments that one takes on from time to time.  
Evidences: Note the numerous ancient temples throughout India that worship Adinath and Gorakshanath - they are abundant.  There are no temples to worship a South Indian saint named Babaji Nagraj, nor this history about him.  Further note all the texts that Gorakshanath is credited for - including Hatha Yoga, Goraksha Shatak, and many many more.  In India, this knowledge is much more well known - and it is widely accepted.  Please do your homework before erasing something that you don't understand.  I repeat, Yogananda, though a very worthy source or information, is not the only source, nor is it the only accepted source. In India, there are many ancient texts that are used by Kriya yogis.
 
I am not here to promote Yogiraj Gurunath, I'm here to present his contribution to the yogic treasury of knowledge - which is a unmitigatingly substantial contribution.  At first I connected his name to his website, because that's what other organizations had done, and I was not aware of the wikipedia syntax, but have since removed such links and have created a Yogiraj page, DESPITE THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS STILL HAVING LINKS TO THEIR OWN WEBSITES, WHICH I HAVE NOT ALTERED.  If you had actually looked at my postings, you would have seen that - it was done several days ago.
Finally, I should contest the claim that I have made the post lengthy in order to promote Yogiraj.  If you notice, Yogiraj's name was only mentioned once, in order to reference the source of the ensuing text.  The lengthiness of the post is necessary in order to elucidate in full the origins and nature of Babaji.  If you did a thorough analysis of the scriptures, you would see that they are fully in concert with Yogiraj's information.  As I've said, nobody has ever painted such a complete picture of Babaji - even Yogananda admitted that he knew little.  Yogiraj's claims are fully in concordance with whatever Yogananda has written, and they further elucidate Babaji.  Yogiraj spent his early life in the Himalayas amongst the lofty beings that are called the Hamsas and that Naths.  You must understand that these are not castes - Hamsa is the Hongsa of Yogananda - it is the name for the lofty souls.  A Nath is the same - it means Lord of Irradiant Splendor.  The Naths and the Hamsas are one and the same - Yogananda was a lofty Param Hamsa, Sri Yukteswar was born Priya Nath Karar.  Adi Nath means First Yogi, First Lord.  Today there are yogis who call themselves nath yogis of such or such caste, but the 9 NavNaths are ancient, as are the 84 MahaSiddhas - and are written about in numerous ancient texts.  Please understand that there is much much more to the picture than Yogananda put to paper at the time, and that the excerpt from Wings to Freedom does not promote Gurunath more than to credit him for his writing.  In actuality, the excerpt serves to elaborate the treasury of knowledge on Wikipedia about this Being.
Hamsacharya dan 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding additions from Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath's literature 

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

message: This following comment was removed from page:
 "Many people believe Mahavatar Babaji to have been a figurative or fictional character created by Yogananda as a teaching aid."
based on Wikipedia Guidelines for Citing Sources: 
"The need for citations is especially important when writing about the opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say…" Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion, mention them by name, and give a citation to some place where they can be seen or heard expressing that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your opinions or for original research."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
Priyanath 00:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Avoid Weasel Words", Wikipedia style 

message: Roy Eugene Davis, a direct personal disciple of Paramahansa Yogananda and former minister of the Self-Realization Fellowship Phoenix Temple, expressed a similar conclusion in his book Life Surrendered in God: The Philosophy and Practices of Kriya Yoga.
:Is there any special reason why R.E.D. is no longer mentioned in the article? Sam Spade 10:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was lost simply because of the revert war. As far as I know, there would be no objections from anyone if it were to be put back in. —Adityanath 15:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roy Eugene Davis 

message: I've added links under two headings. 'See also', which are Wiki links with relevant chapters from Autobiography of a Yogi about Mahavatar Babaji. And 'External Links', with links to websites of Govindan, YGS, and the one Sam Spade added. (note to sam: that link you added seems not very relevant, or in the main mix of different Babaji schools of thought - just my opinion). I've made the links as neutral as possible. I'm sure there are others that are appropriate, or maybe the link language needs work. Let's discuss it, or make your edit and discuss.Priyanath 20:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Priyanath. I've converted the links to Wikisource to use InterWiki links instead of external links. For future reference, you can use Wikisource:Name of article to link to Wikisource. Similarly wikilinks can be used for other MediaWiki projects such as Wiktionary. —Adityanath 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adityanath, thank you.Priyanath 21:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: In the book "THE VOICE OF BABAJI: A TRILOGY ON KRIYA YOGA", (2nd edition) which was written by V.T.Neelakantan and S.A.A. Ramaiah, it is claimed that the Mahavatar will make himself known in public around the year 2050. Moreover V.T.Neelakantan claimed that Babaji visited him frequently in the night. Should this piece of information be included in the article? I have read the whole book and the author seems to be a credible voice of Babaji. Any comments? The summary of the details of the book can be found here: . --Siva1979Talk to me 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you could add a short paragraph, like the others under "Post-Yogananda claims about Mahavatar Babaji". I don't know the reliability of it, but since that section has a disclaimer in the first paragraph, there could be no objection to you adding it, since it's comparable to the others. ॐ Priyanath 00:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be included? 

message: I think the paragraph about Haidakhan Babaji being mistakenly identified as Babaji should be re-written to a NPOV. I have a copy of Babaji: Gateway to the Light by Gertraud Reichel Verlag in which she tells about many people coming and asking Haidakhan Babaji directly if he was the same Babaji from Yogananda's Autobiography and he says yes.Yonderboy 02:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another work would seem to confirm that, Babaji The Divine Himalayan Yogi, by Swami S. Giri--71.55.208.16 (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistaken identity?