Talk:Natha Sampradaya/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requests for expansion

This article is by a single devotee of an Englishmen turn Swami. However it reflect little of the reality of the modern Nath Sampradaya, particularly as the sect of said Englishmen was dissolved by him upon his demise.

Yes, and it says right at the top that it needs historical background. In point of fact, Shri Gurudev Mahendranath's formed a new householder Nath sect which did not dissolve at his death. Only the original Sannyas sect dissolved. Anyway, if you have constructive information to contribute to the article on the subject of the article then by all means do so. If you don't, then do something else. ;-)

-Adityanath

The article needs historical context and descriptions of the sadhu Nath sects of India. Please help in adding the same. Thank you, --Gurubrahma 09:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Article has been expanded and hopefully that expansion will continue. Adityanath 15:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur that the article doesn't reflect the full historical context about the Nath Sampradaya. Nath Sampradaya in its entirety is a Diaspora of gurus, sects, monasteries & luminaries reaching back to ancient times. This cannot neatly packaged or cataloged. In general there are no specific rules about who can be a guru and who cannot be a guru. Naths are very free style & open ended. Perspectives and biases of modern writers does not accurately reflect the ancient origins of this tradition, which is rich with innumerable texts from well-respected gurus and luminaries, rather than modern western pedants. Hamsacharya dan 04:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Nath Sampradaya

I have added a section on the Nath Sampradaya, which elucidates the history of this tradition, but someone has erased it once again. Why the politics?

Please sign your messages! Don't know who this is from. Your addition was not erased because of politics. It was erased because it was taken wholesale from a copyrighted website. Unless you are the author or copyright holder of the original page, you cannot give permission to release it under the GNU Free Documentation License. It is standard policy on Wikipedia to check the web to see if a new addition was lifted from another website. If so, it is removed so that Wikipedia does not become liable for copyright violation. Please see the pertinent section of the Wikipedia Copyright policy. Also, if you are the original author, you will want to be aware of what releasing your work under the GFDL entails - it means that anyone can use and/or change your work for any purpose, even a commercial purpose, as long as they abide by the terms of the GFDL. Is that really what you want to do? If you are not the author or copyright holder, do you think they will appreciate your doing so? -Adityanath 20:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

Today the Nath Siddhas of the Himalayas are called the Siddha Sangh, The Guardian Wall of Humanity, or The Great White Brotherhood. They guide the evolution of the human race quietly in the shadows, and are generally not available to the masses for personal guidance. The only currently known Nath Siddha that is widely available to sincere seekers of the East and West is known as Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. He gives direct initiation into Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji's Kriya Yoga, and Hamsa Yoga, The Way of the White Swan.

This paragraph contains many POV statements not accepted by Naths in general. For example, I do not believe that the Great White Brotherhood refers to the Naths at all. I also do not agree that Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath is the only Nath siddha available to seekers in the East and West. These are the POV of members of his school and belong in the article Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath which has been referenced under See also in this article. -Adityanath 03:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Hi Adityanath,

You have flagged the page on Yogiraj Gurunath as a possible copyright violation. That is a legitimate concern. I would like to ask you under what authority have you reprinted the text from your Gurudev Mahendranath, and what do you do to satisfy Wikipedia's standards to authenticate your copyright reprint rights?

Thanks, Hamsacharya dan 08:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi H.D.,

Well, there are two different issues here. Small amounts of quoted text with an attribution and a reference are fair use. Say 2 or 3 paragraphs, maybe more if the paragraphs are short. This is also okay with our copyright agent so there is no problem. Quoted text does not become subject to the GFDL - it may be copied along with the article, of course, but not changed or used in another context except with permission or under fair use, etc.

The WP policy is primarily against an article being directly copied from a copyrighted source, whether a book or a website. This is only okay if the copyright holder has given permission to release the material under the GFDL. Normally, WP expects that you will write any material you contribute as generally only the original author can give permision to release under GFDL. Certainly you may quote from copyrighted source with attribution of course, but if less than say, 2/3s of an article is original, it may get flagged as excessive use of copyrighted material.

Hope this helps...

—Adityanath 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Most recent version of Yogiraj Gurunath edit

Aditya - Thank you for you most recent edit. This is much much closer to something acceptable by me - the only problems are that I have not verified some of your wording of my statement - for example I don't know the details of his initiation by Sundernath - he hasn't classified himself as a Dharam Nathi, but I would be comfortable saying that he is a Gorakhnathi. I also don't know whether Gurunath would agree with your comment about rarely giving a Nath initiation. Different sampradayas after all have different understanding of what that constitutes, as we've discussed. I would rather leave out information that I'm not sure about, since I don't want to mislead people. You are correct about his birth year. If you are open to working with me to finalize an edit that is acceptable to both of us fully, I think that would be the most productive thing, rather than another edit war. Out of respect for your gesture, I will not edit the page, but will instead offer an alternative here, that we can discuss:

Another more recent teacher is Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath (b. 1944), who spent his early years amongst the Nath yogis (who he also refers to as the Hamsas - Supreme Swans) of the Himalayas, in whose presence he was transformed. According to Gurunath, this transformation culminated with his deep and personal experience with Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji at the age of 23. Sometime later, he founded the Hamsa Yoga Sangh and is purported by his disciples and devotees to be a modern living master and Nath siddha. His book, entitled Wings to Freedom: Mystic Revelations from Babaji & the Himalayan Yogis was first published in 2004. He gives initiation throughout the world into what he calls Mahavatar Babaji's Shiva Shakti Kriya Yoga.

~Hamsacharya Dan

Dan, you don't seem to get it. This article is about the Naths, not about Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath. There is no reason to put the information I've italicized above into this article. What goes here is names, dates, initiator, lineage, organization and publication. Life experiences, personal details, etc. should go in the article about the subject. Frankly, we don't need this paragraph or the one I added about Mahendranath to balance it at all. People are smart enough to follow the see also links. In fact, if you're going to keep PROMOTING, I think I'd rather simply remove that section again. —Adityanath 13:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Please use reputable academic sources for this article. Might I suggest The Alchemical Body by David Gordon White. There are others. I'll add them as I recall them. Chai Walla 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

define reputable per wikipedia policy. please include references to wikipedia policy when requesting edit conformation. Hamsacharya dan 04:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on reliable sources can be found in several places. To quote WP:VERIFY (emphasis mine):

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

And to quote WP:NOR:

"Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications."

—Adityanath 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

I want to remind everyone that the NPA policy is non-negotiable. I haven't edited this article at all, so I will be able to exercise adminstrative functions here without a conflict of interest if insults continue. Aren't yoga students supposed to be tolerant, friendly people? --Fire Star 17:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion from WP:CP

• Nath (history · last edit) from [1]. 71.116.184.140 07:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I am the user who added the quote from Shri Gurudev Mahendranath works. I am a member of the copyright committee of the organization (International Nath Order) which holds the copyright. We don't think that there is any question that this usage is allowed under fair use as long as the original works are referenced and linked in the references section. The same article with the same quotes has been submitted by us to several other GFDL sites. To be clear, we are not releasing the quotes under GFDL, we are acknowledging that we consider the use to be fair use. —Adityanath 13:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a quote. It might be a little long (I don't think so), but it is clearly indicated as a quote and seems appropriate to the context. Matt 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the reasoning and hence I removed Nath from copyright problems. --Gurubrahma 03:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Per our Truce

Hey Adityanath -

Let's start our discussion here. So, first thing I notice is that it says that the Nath's are a timeless lineage, but then you say that it started in 300-400 ...that's a contradiction.

I'll change timeless to ancient. Actually, I think the word timeless remains from one of your edits which I partially left. Also, I think the dates are wrong. I can get more accurate dates tonight from The Alchemical Body - they will be more like 9th or 10th century. —Adityanath

Also, regarding Gurunath - he was initiated by several of the Hamsas - he calls the Naths the Hamsas. Hamsa means "I Am He" and there are references to the HamsaNath yogis in ancient texts...i will have to find the ref for that later. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the initiations given by the Hamsas he encountered, including Raja Sundernath, are esoteric initiations, and i have no information about who what where when why, except for general information.

Well, you should get the details or we should leave them out here and simply state that Gurunath claims to be a Nath. I am only willing to state that he is a Nath in this article if a definite initiator can be specified. A Sampradaya is, after all, an inititory Guru-shishya tradition. No initiator, no membership. Read the page on Sampradaya if you don't understand what I mean. —Adityanath

That is why it is stated that he spent his early years in the Himalayas amongst the Naths, in whose presence he was transformed. He tells stories about these experiences in his book, but it doesn't include dates. You know, Gurunath has even said that, on an even higher level, the avatars don't even do initiations, they simply pass through eachother, and when their chakras meet, the information is passed directly. The point is that things are not necessarily so black and white as to be "well, he put on his black belt, said a mantra over the fire and water, and touched my forehead" or whatever the case may be.

Well, to be a member of the Sampradaya, he must be able to specify who his diksha-guru is. Otherwise, these are just stories. Actually, there should be very little about YGS in this article, especially if his diksha-guru and panth or sub-sect cannot be identified. This is an historical article. If you want to use a fact in this article, you'd better be able to provide a reference in a book published by a reputable University press or a peer-reviewed periodical. As one of YGS's teachers, can't you ask him? While it borders on original research, I think a personal communication would be valid. —Adityanath 21:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya_dan 20:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly ask him...although now is not the best time, as he is in India. In all honesty, and as a pure generalization, I would be much more comfortable if historical details were taken from ancient texts rather than newer meta-analyses - as the newer analyses tend to come from western researchers that lack the proper perspective. The modern sources that I personally trust are those of the Kriya lineage of Gurus and my own Guru obviously, but that may not fly with Wikipedia. I'm not familiar with the book you mentioned, and perhaps the author is really great, but generally I've seen time and time again how concepts from Sanatan Dharma have been utterly perverted by western analysts. The effect is that westerners understanding of Yoga becomes distorted- they think it's a system of physical postures, and this perspective has only been bolstered by the limited minds of modern western writers...

Anyway, this applies to the Nath article in that it would be good to reference the earliest Nath texts to discuss the Sampradaya. I pointed out the "timeless" fallacy, not to ask you to change the wording, but to point out that certain things are truly mysterious and don't fit into the formula of dated initiations. Case in point: AdiNath - who is Lord Shiva. The foundations of Sanatan Dharma are that Lord Shiva is limitless - omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, beyond causality. Yet the texts say that he initiated Parvati and Matyendranath...Parvati initiated Ganesh...etc...etc... The question becomes what do we take as "allegory" and what do we take as "fact". Here the presupposition is that the two are intertwined by the religion of "lore". So, that can lead to arguments about what is realistic and what is outlandish. That's why I'm pushing this idea of referencing ancient texts - that way we disclaim presuppositions of fact or fiction and write the article as essentially a review article of established Nath foundational texts. Hamsacharya dan 01:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I may concede in the manner of generalities, that many details related to the Nath Sampradaya are lost to history and the passage of time. There is no verifiable "founder" of the Naths, as it was too far in the past to be certain beyond reasonable doubt. There are conflicting claims and no hard records. Many point to Dattatreya and others to Matsyendranath. Though a disciple of Matsyendranath, many point to Gorakshanath as the founder. Some even point to the Navanaths, the picture is cloudy outside of the considered claims of any distinct Sampradaya holding valid Parampara from the past. In this way, the claims of each valid Sampradaya has at least the validity of "their own" history which has been passed down as their own "creation story" over a long period of time. I believe all valid Sampradayas have at minimum a name of "their" founder. Many claim Gorakshanath, Nath Avadhut, Babashri Amrit Nath ji Maharaj, etc..

Ancient texts might be used as a source, but just because a text is old or ancient, does not mean that it is true or accurate. One ancient text may not reflect or be recognised by a valid tradition.

In the case of Yogaraj Gurunath Siddhanath, we have no credible information whatsoever. His website suggests that he is the disciple of a man in a painting. We are also required to believe in physical immortality at the same time. On the merit of this information, I would suggest his claims to be absolutely suspect.

Now it is not so hard to get valid Nath initiation and I believe YGS is a sincere yogi. Who then is his diksha Guru? What is his Sampradaya? Who gave him the title "Yogaraj", or is this his creation? Who in blazes gave him the highly bizzare title of "Gurunath" or is this his own creation? If Siddhanath is his "Nath" name, once again- who is his diksha Guru who fathered his birth into the Nath stream and gave him his new identity as Siddhanath? Who gave him authority to act and function as a Nath Guru? Why is he initiating people into something called the "Hamsa Yoga Sangh" if he is a Nath Guru of an established Sampradaya? What is the name of the Nath Sampradaya which initiates lay people or householders, etc., etc...?

Please ask him. These points are valid questions any Nath should be able and proud to answer. If Siddhanath came to sit with me at my dhuni and gave me the run around in response to these questions, I would have him thrown out on his ear. It's the Nath way. - Chai Walla 07:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I think that your first paragraph should be included into this article, right at the top of the Sampradaya section.

Don't worry, HD. I'll be adding some qualifications as I have time. For example, according to D. White, he and many other scholars have reason to believe that Luipa, Minanath and Matsyendranath are simply different names for the same person. I intend to add this and other documentable differences of opinion about the historical background as I figure out how to best integrate them and have time to devote to it. —Adityanath 21:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on Wings to Freedom (W2F), I think that YGS would agree with D. White on that point. Hamsacharya dan 02:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, I agree that ancient texts are not necessarily true or accurate or recognized - but they're generally speaking, the least controversial. I'm going to make a generalized comment here, take it or leave it: Masters don't usually read books - they gets information from the Akashic records, which may be why they don't make references to source texts usually.

Third, Gurunath wouldn't give you the run around - and you wouldn't throw him out on his ear. Come on man...lay off the disrespectful images please. Your questions are most certainly valid. I can ask him these questions when I get a chance - there are some answers in his autobiography, not necessarily specific enough for your taste perhaps. Also, didn't you say you've seen him in peson before - why weren't you able to get these answers then?

Please be very clear on this issue: He never has claimed to be a direct disciple of the man in the painting - in fact he says that he is definitely not a direct disciple, and that it is necessary (but not sufficient) to be an avatar in order to be able to capacitate Babaji as a guru. Hence his title "Mahavatar" - yet another connection between Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji and Mahavatar Babaji. He also says in another sense, we are all disciple of Babaji - disciples of disciples of disciples of disciples etc.. of Babaji. Hamsacharya dan 19:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi HD, I'm glad you are moving a bit slower so we might discuss a bit. Regarding your first point above. My comments are POV. It would have to be argued that common sense supports my statement and is stronger than the published references already cited in the article. Please don't change anything without further discussion. My comments were meant for discussion, nothing else.

Point Two I agree with in essence. However, as editors of WP we must at least attempt to discern between fact and fantasy. Yes, I met your Guru. I had no interest in asking him anything. His claims are his own. The distinction here and why I am asking you now, is because you and no one else is attempting to insert his claims into an encyclopedia. Get it?

Point Three. I am capable of respectful and civil dialog and will adhere to this policy of the WP. If you discuss specific issues in good faith, then I may also see and understand that you are being civil also. My questions related YGS, his initiation and names are as far as I am concerned, require answers in order to establish his credibility as a Nath and Nath Guru. It's that simple.

Thanks for responding to my post. -Chai Walla 20:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting specific about YGS

Ok, HD. I think you've drawn out this discussion long enough. As I'm sure you know, a Nath Guru can only be the head of a panth or, alternatively, the head of a sub-sect either within a panth or of a sub-sect which does not identify itself with a panth. So, to identify YGS's place in the Nath Sampradaya, you simply have to answer these questions:

• Is Gurunath the head/guru of one of the twelve panths? If so, which one? Who was his predesessor as head of the panth?
• If not, is Gurunath the head/guru of a sub-sect of one of the twelve panths? If so, what is the name of the sub-sect and to which panth does it belong? Who was the predesessor as head of the sub-sect?
• Or, is Gurunath the head/guru of a sub-sect which is not part of the panth system? If so, what is the name of the sub-sect? Who was the previous head of the sub-sect?

I'm hoping that by clarifying the question, that the answer will also be as clear and simple.

---Baba Louis 19:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to draw anything out Baba Louis. We have to somehow come to terms with the discrepancies here. You want mundane facts - and I understand your desire to have them, but I simply don't at this moment. Here are the facts as I know them:

1. Gurunath has not alleged to be initiated into the dharam nath panth as your current edit suggests. He does allege that he is a Nath. He has also alleged that he has had meetings with both Raja Sundernath and Shiv-Goraksha-Babaji in the flesh. He has also said that after his meeting with Raja Sundernath, that he was able to impart to others dimensions of his Unmani Avasta - his state of "No-Mind" Enlightened awareness (which I and thousands of others have personally experienced).

You previously said that his "direct master" was Raja Sundernath, and you also said that Raja Sundernath is of the Dharam nath panth. Direct master implies initiator. If he was initiated by a member of the Dharam nath panth then that is his panth also. I created this paragraph based on those statements which you made on talk pages. Do you retract them? Shall I remove the paragraph until you have confirmed the facts? Perhaps we should keep Gurunath's claims in the article about him. —Adityanath 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

2. Gurunath's initiation IS a nath initiation, and Shiva-Shakti, a nath technique, is the foundational pranayam technique given by Mahavatar Babaji to Lahiri Mahasaya to spread as part of the "divine science" of Kriya Yoga.

That is not what I have heard. Does he give his initiates a Nath name? You seem to be confusing initiation by a person who is a Nath with initiation into the Nath Sampradaya. If he had initiated you into the Nath Sampradaya, you would have a Nath name and know what panth or sub-sect you belong to. —Adityanath 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he does give them Nath names at their request. You're missing the point of his mission - he's not here to create subsects, he's here to create unity - "Humanity is one's only religion", not "Nath is MY religion and it should be yours too." He's not here to be a panth manager, he's here to spread God. That's why he focuses on giving the direct experience - shaktipat, pranapat, and shivapat. Because until someone actually feels God, he'll be stuck in his brain box and over-emphasize silly details that have nothing to do with Samadhi. Yogaha Samadhi - yoga is samadhi - Rishi Vyas said that. Divine union is samadhi - whether or not you're wearing a nath belt. Hamsacharya dan 00:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say, the devil's in the details... and it's the details that belong in an encyclopedia article, not the touchy-feely feel-good wanna-unify-everything stuff. —Adityanath 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and "Nath" is not a religion. Hinduism is a religion. The Nath Sampradaya is simply an initiatory lineage. Siddhas are magicians, not priests. My Nath lineage does not consider itself a religion, nor do we consider ourselves Hindu. —Adityanath 00:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why would Gurunath lie about being a nath? He has all the nath regalia, he gives initiation by fire and water, and being a nath gives him no added benefit in spreading kriya yoga to the west as the kriya yoga parampara is orders of magnitude more prominent due to the contribution of Yogananda. Hamsacharya dan 22:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did Leonard Orr lie about Haidakhan Babaji being the same as Mahavatar Babaji when the poor boy himself repeatedly denied it? Some questions may be unanswerable. I'll not suggest any base motivations, but I will note that in the actual Nath Sampradaya, one may never charge a cent for the teachings. I understand that the Babaji Kriya Yoga Empowerment costs $108. That in itself tells me that it is outside and separate from the Nath tradition. —Adityanath 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi HD. A number of people have explained the criterion of the required information which should shed some light on why "Gurunath" claims to be "Nath" and why anyone outside his circle should take these claims as valid. It is obvious that you cannot supply us with the information requested. What is a bit depressing, is that instead of attempting to discuss or resolve a reasonable demand for specific information related to clearing things up, you instead continue to press what appears to be a baseless claims on spurious grounds. "Why would Gurunath lie", etc., etc. This is not winning you any points for discussion, nor is it furthering your objective of causing anyone to "believe" you based on your personal feelings that everything the man in question writes and says is the absolute objective truth.

This may be your truth. It may not be the truth of others. The doubts have been clearly explained to you. If you do understand the important questions raised, then I would expect that you would ask and it could be further explained or discussed. Frankly, you are displaying a pattern of disregard which suggests you do not care what other people think or believe, though they base their doubts on solid historical criterion.

What is happening here HD, is that you are creating a data trail which backs up the claims of your most vociferous critics. You are undermining your own credibility as someone who might qualify or be taken seriously as an sincere and credible editor of the WP. If this continues, I doubt your claims will be accepted no matter what "information" you eventually create, obtain or otherwise extend. -Chai Walla 07:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

References and Possible Modifications

Adityanath, I hope to give a bit of time in the next months to the Nath entry. I may need to write a few letters to get some input from the Naths in India. The creation story of the Nath Sampradaya as currently told here could benifit by some streamlining, IMHO.

While Dattatreya is looked upon by many Indians as the "Original Guru" Adi-Guru and Avatar of Shiva- his connection with the Nath Sampradaya is mostly Avadhut and concepts associated with Guru tradition. While Dattatreya is a part of the Nath Stream emanating as an Avatar of Shiva, the connection with the Nath Sampradaya as it is known today, is less well represented.

I believe this to be the case because Dattatreya is SO ancient. The Avadhuta tradition has always been an important aspect of the Natha Sampradaya, though this influence and the position of the Avadhut has been diluted since the rise of Gorakshanath and his followers.

Of course the rise of the Gorakshanath was due to the establishment of centers based on real estate and ashrams or dhunis. A concept foreign to the ancient Nathas who eschewed a fixed ashram or home. It was this influence of fixed abode which established a stable basis for the perpetuation of fixed practices and ideas. Some thought this to be an introduced flaw. I remain agnostic on the matter. What happened, happened. I'm confident we will work out the wording to fit with the picture of what transpired in past, present and leading to the future. -Chai Walla 08:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. I've streamlined the Nath Sampradaya section somewhat. What do you think? —Adityanath 20:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath, I am much in agreement with the direction of the new changes. A number of quibbles for discussion when I have more time. At the current moment, I think the weakest aspect of the article is the Matsyendranath story of being swallowed by the fish. This is of course a story repeated by so many authors. Shades of Captain Mohab... In my own conversations with other Naths, the "ocean" in which Matsyendranath descended into was the "causal" ocean of the spirit. The fish metaphor related to the Svadhistana Chakra and its iconography. In any case, Matsyendranath brought down the teachings. The sanskrit word is avatarita, a bringing down from the divine to human plane. Something along these lines would be, IMHO, a vast improvement over the fairy tale of the "fish story". Suitable reference might be found on page 88 of the Alchemical Body, G. White or Kauljnananirnaya of Matsyendranath. More later-Chai Walla 07:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath, I don't have easy access to the Deshpande, M.N. (1986). The Caves of Panhale-Kaji reference, so I ask you the following related to the Nath Sampradaya section. Currently, the first line reads. "The Nath Sampradaya, also known as the Siddha or Avadhut Sampradaya,[1] is an ancient lineage of spiritual masters." Wouldn't it be clearer to write, "The Nath Sampradaya, an offshoot of the earlier Siddha or Avadhut Sampradaya,[1] is an ancient lineage of spiritual masters." [?] I don't want to disturb the cited reference, but Siddha and Avadhut are not true synonyms in the sense of Sampradaya. A Sampradaya is by definition a specific stream qualified by its proper Noun, in this case - Nath. Comments? -Chai Walla 00:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that would be fine. The source actually equates them, but it is a short chapter in a book primarily about archeological evidence... but maybe 'continuation' would be better than 'offshoot?' That would cover both the reason for identifying them as well as pointing out the difference, and would not conflict with the reference. —Adityanath 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Perhaps the best word would be 'development'? "The Nath Sampradaya, a development of the earlier Siddha or Avadhut Sampradaya,[1] is an ancient lineage of spiritual masters." This would solve the problem I see with the current sentence as the substance of both the Siddha and Avadhut Sampradaya remain in the Nath Sampradaya. Also, development relates to the source as an implied continuation. Comments?-Chai Walla 03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)