Talk:H. W. L. Poonja
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the H. W. L. Poonja article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
He is popularly known as "Papaji," not sure why the article is listed this way. I propose we move it to Papaji, with a redirect from his name.... no one would type in "H.W.L. Poonja!" Sethie 22:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
There are many masters who by their disciples are called papaji - it's just a nickname like "daddy". His real name is Poonja, and if you type it in without the complicated h.w.l., you will as well arrive on the article. regards Aki-108 06:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Change: The statements in the "Ambassador " section were somewhat sectarian and questionable to begin with. The reason I removed it altogether is because there were statements made there that were becoming highly partisan at best. The statements written were choosing from Poonja's many contradictory statements in a way that was serving their own point of view, one that is certainly not followed by the overwhelming majority of his disciples and devotees. Poonja made many more statements confirming people's awakening than denying it. Those who are trying to define things otherwise are having to ignore the bulk of Poonja's statements and focus on a few. Better to avoid this ugliness of infighting altogether and remove the section. This page is about Poonjaji himself, not his disciples or what other people or organizations think of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriskrishna (talk • contribs) 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Chriskrishna, You have done a wonderful job of improving the Poonjaji article. It looks so much better than it did before you started work on it! I hope you feel ok about the little additions and changes I just did ... please revert anything you think detracts. There is one sentence in the article which seems a little awkward -- "Ramana pointed out that the only God who is with him continually was the One who had seen the Visions of God, and unlike the God who he saw with his eyes, that One ( Consciousness ) does not come and go." Do you think it could be rephrased a little? I did not want to barge in and try changing it because I was concerned I might lose some part of what you were trying to convey. Alternatively, we could put in a direct quote there. best wishes, (Iddli 09:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC))
- Agreed. Removing references to his followers and their controversial claims seems best at this point. For the record, Papaji's statements confirming awakenings are not denied, but are not definitive confirmations of full realization, and based on what is in Godman's book and Papaji's seemingly contradictory, Zen like approach can also be seen as classic tests of egoicity in the disciple, a method of testing which has a long spiritual tradition. Papaji is on record as denying he gave his final teachings to any followers or that any proved worthy to receive them. As it says in Godman's published interviews on this subject: David: “Many people have heard you say, ‘I have not given my final teachings to anyone’. What are these final teachings, and why are you not giving them out?” Papaji: “Nobody is worthy to receive them. Because it has been my experience that everybody has proved to be arrogant and egotistic… I don’t think anyone is worthy to receive them.”--Dseer (talk) 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Focus on Papaji
A number of people still consider Poonjaji their spiritual master. Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) is among those having experienced shaktipat but later on the two of them split because of personal disagreement.
- Cohen, Andrew Autobiography of An Awakening, Moksha Press (1992) ISBN 0-9622678-4-8
When Luna Tarlo, the mother of Andrew Cohen, met Poonjaji for the first time, he said, pointing at Cohen, "He is my son!" Feb. 1/1990 and May 7/90 she wrote letters to Poonja trying to call upon his responsibility for "his" son, asking him to help Andrew. Neither of her letters were ever answered. Poonjaji had sent her first letter to Andrew with a notation in the margin saying, "Need I answer this?" - "I felt betrayed by Poonja", Tarlo comments. 
- Luna Tarlo:"The Mother of God", 1997, Plover Press, ISBN 9781570270437 pages 59, 288-290
This is about Papaji, too.
People like to evaluate enlightened people the same general way they evaluate anyone else. This is a mistake. Those who have realized their infinite Being are not bound by mind, body, or events. To them, our reality is at most a shadow. Their actions are influenced by the expectations and mores of society, but not bound by them. Their actions are always in respone to some need. They may see a seeker's need as more needful of response than a non-seeker's. I have seen enlightened people condemn the egoistic actions of seekers, using strong words, when they know that that is necessary. And sometimes, even for a wise and devoted seeker it is necessary for the Guru to shock them a little. Considerations like these should be in mind when evaluating stories of the actions of those who appear enlightened. Many fewer are the holy men accused of being frauds who actually are frauds; more often than not we who have not yet had the full experience of unbounded awareness misunderstand their actions because we are not aware of the global context. Accusations and judgments are just another example of our very strong attachment to the supposed reality of mind and body and deductive reasoning (because we rarely have all the facts), along with the misery we experience (and avoid) when we feel pain and our misery and avoidance when pleasure inevitably fades. Those who live with change and suffering, not knowing that there is a very different level of Reality, should think twice before assuming they understand those who live free from change and suffering. This includes me, by the way; I offer these observations as an explanation for why a beautiful, helpful person might be attacked, not as a criticism of anyone. David Spector (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Focus on what?
-  I don't agree with the argument given by you. Actually, I think you are so fond of Poonja that you cannot bear any remark which seems to be "critical" to you. Am I wrong?
Papaji Satsang (Papaji speaking)
- Let there be peace and love, among all beings of the universe.
- Let there be peace, let there be peace.
- Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti.
I was very astonished, when I read the passage about Ramana Maharishi being a secret bhakta, and telling H.W.L. Poonja in a vision that "Krishna devotion was the only truth". This contradicts completely everything I have read about Poonja and Ramana Maharishi.(About Poonja: "Nothing ever Happened" by David Godman, and about Ramana Maharishi D.Godman's "Be what you are", Orthur Osborne's books, "The Complete works of Ramana Maharshi" and "Arunachala Shiva" by Premananda, Godman and Swartz, published just recently 2009.
Ramana was a compassionate jnani, but not a bhakta. To those, who were unable to practice Atma Vichara he suggested to continue with their previous sadhana, mostly some form of bhakti. He appreciated bhakti as a road to Self-realization. But that vision Poonja received, I cannot believe it. It suits and confirms Poonja's primary sadhana and his agenda. By the way, Krishna was and is not worshipped in southern India, and Shiva has been there the most exalted divine manifestation. Tellervo (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Tellervo, You seem to be missing the point. According to Poonjaji the vision received were neither confirmed or denied by Ramana directly but lead to Poonjaji trusting Ramana and becoming a jnana himself, its purpose was a vehicle for Poonja , not necessarily a declaration of ultimate truth. That being said, I wouldn't be so linear about all this. As someone who spent time with Poonjaji, I can assure you that being too linear about the distinction between Bhakti and Jhana looks good on paper but does not always show up that way in reality. If Ramana was not a bhakta what was he doing writing hymns to a mountain he claimed was his guru? Why was he so attached to that hill so he that he never left it? Makes no sense to be so attached that you have to go to it, live with it and die near it if everything is equally THE SELF. Of course as a Jhana Ramana knew everything was the Self, but as a bhakta Arunachala was his beloved, his ishtadevata (chosen deity)... otherwise why all the fuss over that particular hill? -Chriskrishna (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- See my comment in the Focus on Papaji section above. David Spector (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like the Caplan-quote, you can counter-balance it which quotes with deny this charge, or you can argue against the reliability of the source per WP:RS, but you can't simply remove sourced info without proper discussion. And surely not a second time, withput discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)