User talk:Adityanath/Archive 1

Response to great trip!

Adityaji, Yes, that was fun, wasn't it? And yes, I am headed to Seattle. That six month contract in Everett finally solidified so I am en route. I wasn't able to get on the same flight as User:Chai Walla. The cheapest flight I could find went through Dallas of all places, and that's where I'm posting from now. It feels like I should just head down to Austin again and visit you. Anyway, I'll stay at User:Chai Walla's in Seattle for a day or maybe two and then head up to Everett to start work Monday... ---Baba Louis 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityanath, I enjoyed the trip and I am back in Seattle, rather exhausted. I'll write more when I can. ---Chai Walla 22:15 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Adityaji, I made it over to Chai's place and we've been having a nice time. Some plans around Seattle for the weekend, but I'll try to email before I get down to work on Monday... ---Baba Louis 07:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji

Brother, kindly consider my recent revision of the Mahavatar Babaji article. I retained the link to YGS's page as well as his views about Babaji. But I deleted the outside link leading to their website because it will just be a doorway to a bogus cult. As a practitioner of Kriya Yoga from the direct lineage of Lahiri Mahasaya I know for a fact that YGS is fake. Actually, we jokingly refer to his technique as "seven swans a swimming" and to him as Guru Nut. He is a fake disciple of Babaji, a fake teacher of Kriya Yoga, and a fake Nath (you know that). He is into claiming everything though but fails the acid test miserably when challenged, and we've already seen that. All they have as evidence is a book which he HIMSELF wrote. It is really unecessary to add a link to his personal website there, it is just too much.

Yes, I know all this but I don't think it is enough to deny a paragraph and a link in the Mahavatar article. Why not add a section to the new Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath/Temp article about opposing opinions. Then you might have some leverage with H.D. What happens is when you completely remove stuff, he goes wacko and reverts to the version with long quotes, etc. I was planning on reporting him for 3RR last night, but he got offline too soon. I don't think he knows about the rule though so maybe you could prod him into it? —Adityanath 19:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh Brother I am also being a bit carried away by his craziness, which is not right. I have retained the paragraph about YGS though and his name links directly to his page. When his own page is finished people who follow the link by clicking his name would be taken to his website anyway. At least they have to make some effort and Mahavatar Babaji's own page has not been used as the direct doorway to Hell.

The thing with people like him is once you let him once he will gain confidence and fill WP with YGS propaganda including the Nath, Kriya Yoga, Yoga, Hinduism, Sanatan Dharma articles etc. I was banned once, and I was only giving a headache to one person (namely, Dan) this person is giving a headache to all of us, taking our valuable time just to make sure that he does not insert pamphlet into decent articles again. He is like a rat who would slip in to the smallest hole available to steal the cheese. He deserves to be banned.

Hairakhan Baba

Brother, Hariakhan Baba (also known as Herakhan Baba) is different from Haidakhan Wale (also rendered as Bhole) Baba. Hariakhan Baba is [this guy] and Haidakhan Wale Baba is [this guy]. Hairakhan Baba taught in the 1860s while Haidakhan Wale Baba began teaching in 1971 and died in 1983. It is a bit confusing because Haidakhan Wale Baba, the son of an Indian servant and her American master, claimed to be both Herakhan Baba and Mahavatar Babaji. He was a fake.

The following was written by Marshall Govindan. This is about Haidekhan Wale Baba:

In 1971, a young man with occult powers was discovered by villagers in a cave near the village of Herakhan. Know as "Herakhan Baba," he grew in popularity and was discovered and promoted by Leonard Orr and Sondra Ray, the founders of the "rebirthing" movement, as none other than the immortal Babaji. His photograph appears in many places today and his devotees have created much confusion. Herakhan Baba, who died of poisoning in 1983, never claimed that he was Babaji. He lived a life with his own rules which did not reflect the purity of Babaji, and he never taught Kriya Yoga. Whatever good this man did, there never was any reason to associate him with the Immortal Babaji. After being repeatedly pressed by his new American agents, "Aren`t you Babaji? You must be Babaji?," he finally gave up resisting and declared "If you say I am Babaji, I must be Babaji." Our research has further revealed that he was the illegitimate son of a retired British civil servant, Mr. Wilson, and his Sikh maid servant. His family still lives in Ranikhet, and the locals there refer to Herakhan Baba as "Wilson Baba." He had been raised from the age of five by a notorious Tantric master, Naintal Baba, who taught him how to appear in others dreams and other common tantric powers. This Naintal Baba himself claims to be Babaji! Naive Westerners simply assumed that just because a sadhu had some powers and because others claimed he was Babaji, he must be Babaji! [Source]

This is [Hariakhan Baba]

Hariakhan Baba is the guru of Lahiri Mahasaya. He was the one spoken of by Swami Rama and Baba Hari Dass while Haidekhan Wale Baba, the recent and fake one, is the Babaji of Leonard Orr.

The website of Haidekhan Wale Baba is [babaji.net]

Gotcha. I'll add another line to Babaji and remove the confusion from the Haidakhan Babaji page and blank the redirects if you will follow up by (re) creating the Hariakhan Baba page. Unfortunately, there appear to be quite a few webpages out there also confused on the issue, and I must have stumbled upon them... -Adityanath 00:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've hopefully cleaned up the mess and fixed up all the articles. The Hariakhan Baba article can be filled out with more information from Mahendra Baba and Baba Hari Dasa that shouldn't clutter up the Mahavatar Babaji article. All three articles do or should mention the confusingly similarly named Haidakhan Babaji so no one tries to merge the articles. —Adityanath 01:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

What you did was a breath of fresh air. Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath seems to be a fake Nath Yogi, he does not have any valid sampradaya so he claims to be a direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji. Did you see what he did to the Kriya Yoga and Mahavatar Babaji pages? Shameless plugs replete with outlandish claims. Help me watch those pages please to make sure that he never lay his hands on them again.

No To Frauds 16:44, 07 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I will give YGS the benefit of the doubt...for now. I do hope Hamsacharya dan or someone starts a properly objective NPOV page about him. I am doing some research. I think I may have found a classmate of his so I can add his birth name to any new article. (Do you know it?) I too would like to see the question of who YGS's living Nath Guru was and did he explicitly receive parampara? When and where was he initiated? How can he claim to be of the Adi-Nath Sampradaya when that sub-sect was a sannyasin sub-sect? Was he at one time a sannyasin and later renounce those vows? If so, he could be a Nath, but not an Adi Nath, but only if he has a valid lineage. If there are no answers to these questions, there will certainly be a disputed assertions section added to his biography. I personally do not want to do so because I don't want it to look like sectarian infighting, but somebody will have to do it, and do it correctly and without malice or rancor. Of course, all this is separate from the issue of Wikipedia not allowing cut & paste from copyrighted sites. Just because HD is a member and teacher doesn't mean he is the copyright agent. I doubt the real copyright agent will release the text under the GFDL if he know what that means. In any case, the current page was not NPOV and so was inappropriate for Wikiepdia. –Adityanath 01:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shri Gurudev Mahendranath

Greetings, I just read through your user page and found the information on Shri Gurudev Mahendranath very interesting. Having grown up in London myself and also having experienced many visionary experiences since early childhood, I felt I could relate to his journey, very interesting. Thanks for putting the information up, I am aware of AMOOKOS but I had not come across Shri Gurudev Mahendranath until today. Best wishes, Solar 16:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nath

I believe that the Nath Sampradaya is very vast and something which is not completely documented till date. I believe you might be aware that Nath Sampradaya is still active in India. Many sadhu akhadas still do follow the rigid traditions and in any Kumbh Mela you would be able to find Kanpath Yogis. I had the opportunity of visiting Shri Gorakhnath Bekh Barah Avaduth Sampradaya's Math (Kal Bhairav Temple near Mumbadevi) here in Mumbai which is a sub-sect of Gorakhnath Math located at Gorakhpur.

I dont have a source, i belive the Raj Guru of Nepal Royal Family is also from the Nath Sampradaya...Just because many of these sects dont have online present doesnt mean that they dont exist. I think the article needs to be looked from all veiw points.

--Aravind Parvatikar 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good Faith?

Nice to meet you as well. I have read the Manual of Style. Perhaps you should specifically state what you are referring to in the manual. I usually use the standard as put forth in WP:CITE. I would also like you to point out which Direct References I removed. You'll note that the standard is to have inline citations or footnotes to clarify the references, because at the moment only the person who placed that content knows what uncited references (presumably you) are referring to. Which style are you adhering to here? Also, the reasons the URL Last Accessed dates were placed there, is because many of the links were non-functional when I came upon the entry.

I was not aware you owned the entry. If you are going to be so fanatically protective of this entry you are apparently stewarding, you need to at least review what I did before you bite my head off. I did nothing in bad faith, and there are several styles which are currently acceptable on wikipedia. Since nothing was inline or footnoted, I obviously assumed that the content was not sourced. Please footnote your Direct References between <ref> and </ref>, and I'll promise to never touch your entry again. WeniWidiWiki 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Obviously, the lack of a standard reference criteria has put us at cross-purposes. I still feel that it would be much more effective to use footnotes, but it is your call. I did not intentionally remove any references - again: footnotes would have clarified this. For example the blind link to Confessions, has no identifying information ISBN, etc., and no explanation as to what it is even linking to. (I had to go up the hierarchy to even discover what it was, because there isn't a title on the linked page.) Therefore, I (incorrectly) assumed the link to Confessions under references was incomplete or vague (hence hunting down a proper ISBN number). In many of the namespaces I have edited, the subject matter and other editors have required a higher burden of verifiability than what the OTO entry currently has. Ditto, with the dead links. You may want to proactively clean up the referencing before other problems arise as a result, but again, that is your call. WeniWidiWiki 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Speed

Noted. Regretfully Celcius 03:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Mahavatar Babaji

... enjoy your vacation. I'll clean up what I can. JDoorjam Talk 14:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

Greetings. I was asked to look in on the Babaji controversy and add my 2 cents. I have posted some comments at the above talk page and would like to know what you think. Cheers! --Fire Star 21:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've had limited time online recently but so far the article looks good. Adityanath 05:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Your story, while inventive, is impossible to verify. Meatpuppets are treated like sockpuppets anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not paid to do this you know, I use my own personal time to try to help Wikipedia. If you want someone else to check my work, feel free to find them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly your lucky to find a person to do the checkuser, nevermind a proof reader. Users with checkuser rights are the MOST trusted, non foundation members on the wiki. Mike _{(T C)} 03:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)