Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.15.17.152 (talk) at 01:34, 6 March 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In Response

nuts - your hatefulness betrays your distorted mind. Gurunath welcomes all into his mouth and ass, don't let the looks fool you... he is bisexual. But I have one confession to make, I am not a neuroscientist. You got me there.

Priyanath - there are alot of contradictions with Yogananda and Gurunath. You must keep things in context. DIfferent Yogas also appear to have no contradictions, but they are also all different. Yes, there are contradictions with Govindan's claims.

Sri Yukteswar did not choose that name - it was given him by his Guru. He was born Priya Nath Karar - Priya Nath means Beloved Lord. His name did not make him a Nath, his spiritual stature made him a Nath (Lord of Irradiant Splendor). By the way, nobody's parents make their children nath yogis - that's a false statement you've made. Nath is not passed down through blood - it is something earned by ceaseless meditation. Adinath is another name for Shiva by any and all who know anything about Sanatan Dharma - Adi Nath - First Lord. This is not a caste or creed - it is part of the origin and essence of Sanatan Dharma.

Priyanath, I've not altered the Kriya page in several days, and yet you accuse me of putting my guru's name at the top, while you have yourself done what you have warned against: inserted lengthy passages. I am here not looking for a battle, but a resolution. But I will fight for the right to put Siddhanath's references there. He has thousands of disciples all over the world, but even if he had no disciples, that would not take away from his expertise. The number of disciples has nothing to do with the spiritual stature of a being. Look at Babaji for example - he has only had 1 disciple for the past 150 years.

Nobody here is an expert. The ignorant religious ones like myself are always the ones that find fault and contradiction. The one's that have realized the Truth laugh at my petty quarrels. There is much much more information out there. Anyone who claims to know about Kriya yoga should go to the source and get darshan from the Great ones that still exist today -> go to the Himalayas and speak with the yogis meditating at the caves and ashrams and ask them where are the great one's meditating. See what they have to say about Kriya Yoga. The masses were never the experts on any subject. Hamsacharya dan 20:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya Dan, I am well aware that Sri Yukteswar's given name was no indication of his being a Nath yogi. My point was that the claim of his being a Nath yogi is yours, not Sri Yukteswar's. I've researched the writings of Sri Yukteswar, Lahiri, and others of those Guru lines, and none of them ever said they were Nath Yogis, or even talked about the Nath yogis, or Adinath, etc.

None from the Lahiri lineage have said that Babaji was Goraksha or Adinath, etc. Their silence on that matter is convincing to me. Lahiri and Yogananda both said that Babaji was Lord Krishna, and that Mahavatar Babaji in his present form is hundreds of years old, not thousands or millions. What does Siddhanath say to that?

"Look at Babaji for example - he has only had 1 disciple for the past 150 years." No, he has many thousands of Kriya disciples.

You say you will fight for the right to put Siddhanath's references here. I'm not fighting you on that. I think that every self-proclaimed Kriya teacher and direct-to-babaji claimant should have references here, even when I don't believe them. That's called having a neutral POV (Point of View), one of the benchmarks of Wikepedia. Then there is the majority POV, which is also one of the Misplaced Pages guidelines. Your recent edits again put your POV up top, and degrade the far more popular and accepted POV. And the 'anomymous' editor has been doing the same for the last few days.

I do not 'claim to be an expert', and never did, but I have done a fair amount of research, which is not worth much in the end. More important is satsang and discussion with other Kriya lines, which I have done. And daily Kriya sadhna.

Yes, I've been to the Himalayas, and the ashrams, and caves, and even to to the 'Nath's' (kedar- and badri-, does that make me a nath yogi?). I've sat at the feet of babas there. Like anywhere, it's a mixture of truth, arrogance, enlightenment, blindness, and pomposity. An Indian name or heritage, a hoary beard or matted hair, grand pronouncements that can never be verified, do not an avatar or master make.

I agree with you, the masses were never experts on any subject. That's why Kriya Yogis look to the Masters for truth - not to the self-proclaimed ones, but those who brought Kriya Yoga back in this age: Lahiri Mahasaya and his lineage. They've withstood the test of time in a way that others haven't and probably won't. And that's why they have earned the respect of the majority of Kriya Yogis.

Priyanath 21:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath

Priyanath - the current edit you've made is acceptabale to me. Yogananda's quote here is very beautiful. For the record, I do disagree with you on several of the points mentioned above, but I wont belabour the discussion with that now.. Time will tell. Hamsacharya dan 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamsacharya Dan, I know that we don't agree on alot - there are some things on the web page that I don't fully agree with, and I also don't want to belabor the point(s). But I think all sides are being presented respectfully, and I think that you and I have alot in common in the end.

Priyanath 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath