Talk:Kriya Yoga school/Archive 1

message: Hello, I had recently updated the Kriya_Yoga WIKI page with some links and info and noticed in the history that you removed them stating the page was only for the direct lineage of branches originating from Lahiri Mahasaya. 
I have a question: Isn't 'Kriya_Yoga' all but one generic branch as revived by Mahavatar Babaji and which should encompass all the lineages and more importantly, present any one searching for information on it with the complete picture and as much information on it as possible?
:Hi Ravindra, The vast majority of people associate the phrase "Kriya Yoga" with that taught by the Lahiri Mahasaya lineages. "Kriya" is certainly more generic, and refers to other types of kriya practices. The Lahiri Mahasaya line is where Babaji 'revived' Kriya Yoga. There should probably be a page for the half-dozen (and growing) recent direct-from-Babaji kriya teachers. I don't think it should be here, though, because those other 'kriya yogas' vary, often radically,  from the practice that Babaji revived through Lahiri Mahasaya. It gets confusing to have every new teacher who teaches Kriya based on their (claimed) direct vision of Babaji.
:If you go the Kriya page, you see that it's a 'disambiguation page', which you can learn about here: WP:DAB. Those pages are used "when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. In many cases, this word or phrase is the same natural title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topic pages that share essentially the same term in their title." I believe that if there is a special page for all of the newer, non-lineage 'kriya yoga' teachers, it should be linked from there.
:Also, the Sadguru_Yogiraj_Sri_Sri_Mangeshda article needs some serious work to meet Wikipedia standards. If needs to be written as an encyclopedia article, rather than a promotional piece.
:Please sign your posts with the four tildes ( ~ ) so people can see who is talking. ॐ Priyanath 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ravindra, There is no evidence or reference, except personal claims, that this is "the same ancient knowledge as handed down by Babaji himself." Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, everything needs references and citations. Claims and visions are not good enough.  See: Wikipedia:Verifiability, especially: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." and "If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." By these standards, the article Sadguru_Yogiraj_Sri_Sri_Mangeshda should be deleted entirely, and is in danger of being deleted by other editors. The section you added to the Kriya Yoga article could be deleted on the same grounds, though in this case it was also deleted on the grounds that the article is about the Kriya Yoga through the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage. ॐ Priyanath 15:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Ravindra, I suggest the best thing to do is to educate yourself about Wikipedia. I'll post a notice on your talk page that is often given to new editors here. The best thing you could do would be to go to the links posted there and learn about Wikipedia. Also, these links have helpful information: WP:NOT and WP:VERIFY. Another thing that you could do is to start editing articles on which you have knowledge and sources. It would give you a good understanding of editing here, and the process of resolving editing disputes. ॐ Priyanath 18:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Jz, I swapped out the quote for a clearer one from Autobiography of a Yogi. There is also some question regarding exact quotes from God Talks to Arjuna, since it was so heavily edited for 45 years that some don't consider it a reliable source for Yogananda quotes. The Autobiography of a Yogi is considered unimpeachable by everyone, however. ॐ Priyanath 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kriya Yoga as a generic term 

message: I would like to take a moment here and say what my heart says</br> 
I have better things to direct my energy to rather than engage in controversy and slander</br>
However, I feel I should put down my thoughts and so I am: My stance on this matter is clear </br>
</br>
        This is an encyclopedia after all and it has to have a neutral stand on the information presented 
	I am seeing here currently, the Kriya_Yoga page held hostage to one lineage </br>
	How can the lineages represent the absolute? they are a part of the whole and not absolute </br>
	The only true lineage there is to Kriya Yoga is that of Yogiraj Mahavatar Babaji 
	The question is also not about whose claims could be true and whose couldn’t </br>
	The real question is what should be considered as a proof</br>
	Again the proof is only AOY and since it was written back in 1951, 
	Yoganandji couldn't have met the more recent personalities and written about them </br>
	And so they will obviously be absent in his writings </br>
	So, by this standard, technically anyone post 1951 should be considered devoid of any proof of "passing on the same technique" </br>
	And this should be applicable to anyone and everyone since it cannot be validated
	The kriya page should be released from the bondage of lineages </br>
	All individuals/organizations claiming to practice or teaching kriya yoga should then appear as a separate section from a link from the kriya page
	Whether that organizations page is fit for Wikipedia or not is a matter external to this discussion 
</br>
For the sake of brevity, I would also like to point out that
On one hand there is a talk of un-professionalism and negativity</br> 
On the other hand, same person displayed them both in own thoughts and opinions
	Writing negatively about others, making personal attacks and name calling
	Having also exhibited double standards-
	
Having written this:</br>
"There is no evidence or reference, except personal claims, that this is "the same ancient knowledge as handed down by Babaji himself." "
And then having also written this:</br>
"You will never find any encyclopedic evidence to compare the Kriya techniques with each other, since it is given as an initiation, as I said, from Guru to disciple. The term Kriya Yoga is widely accepted to mean that of the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage/parampara."
Widely accepted by whom, one individual? without evidence? without a reference? based on personal claim?
</br>
202.75.200.7 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ==========================================================================================================

message: Sylvain, thanks for adding to the page.  I moved this to the appropriate location in the disambiguation page since this page refers to the popular usage of "Kriya Yoga" which is a specific set of yoga practices described in the article and from the lineage of the Indian yogi "Lahiri Mahasaya".  Hope that clears up the move.  If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to address them here. Thanks, --Hamsacharya dan 18:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  kriyayoga (outer tantras of tibetan buddhism) 

message: After much thought and research, at present, and taking into account the following condition, I feel that Priyanath is correct in making the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage the main article related to that term, and other articles should be disambiguated. The only condition is if "kriya yoga" pages which directly relate to Mahavatar Babaji and the kriya technique revived by Mahavatar Babaji, are further disambiguated from other usages of kriya. I have now implemented this disambiguation.  Under these specific circumstances, I feel that the Lahiri Mahasaya-related usage of Mahavatar Babaji's Kriya Yoga should remain as the main article.  --Hamsacharya dan 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More specific disambiguation 

message: What is the point of keeping it? It is not a complete list. Krystian 19:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of lineages 

message: I removed the section, as Krystian suggested above, since it is being used purely to advertise various groups and teachers - all without using reliable third party sources (see WP:RS). There is no encyclopedic rationale for including a section like this. There is also no rationale for including these groups in the External Links. ~ priyanath talk 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lineage/teachers section