Talk:Kriya Yoga school/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Kriya Yoga as a generic term

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)

Hi Priyanath, While I agree with you that the vast majority would associate Kriya Yoga to that propogated via the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage, the reason being that the world had but one abundantly available reference to that branch of Yoga in the form of the 'Autobiography of a yogi'

However, the fact that still remains that it is the same ancient knowledge as handed down by Babaji himself, regardless of lineages and other relative (lesser important)details. As long as that fact holds, It is the same topic and not an ambiguity

Also, how and what an enlightened Guru should teach is upto the divine will and not for lesser mortals like myself to discuss so I would just say, that the very fact that Kriya Yoga needed 'reviving' by Babaji should be a case to consider in itself; for knowledge as all other things in the flux of time, does tend to erode and change form as suited for different times.

So then, why should it be surprising to learn that some of the enlightened Masters choose to do somethings a bit differently? Kriya Yoga is a scientific technique applied to actually perform actions that bring transformation at many levels in a being. So the science is of essence and not the application, the latter being just an external manifestation.

Thanks for your feedback on the Sadguru_Yogiraj_Sri_Sri_Mangeshda article, though I see it as more of an information page than promotion, with Sadguru's guidance someone will inspect it in the light of Wikipedia standards and update it as suitable

Hari Om. Ravindra18 07:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hi Priyanath, So it would seem that one cannot publish information here about anything unless a neutral person (don't know how that is determined) writes / has already written a book or an article about it Ravindra 17:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Fellow Kriyavans, I have added meditation to the category list in order to give wider exposure to the Kriya Yoga article.

Gentle editors, I have inserted a quote that I think makes a number of salient points about Kriya Yoga and contributes to the overall interest and polish of the article. Here Yogananda gives a rare glimpse of the internal workings of Kriya pranayam, their grand cosmic scale and the notable effect the practice has on the sadhaka's spiritual evolution.Jzkramer 10:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Lineages not connected with Lahiri Mahasaya

Since these teachers are not connected by parampara with Lahiri Mahasaya, I have humbly offered a 3rd category which makes no claims other than they are kriya yoga teachers who associate to the kriya of Mahavatar Babaji by other means. Out of my deepest gratitude for Yogananda and his contribution of bringing the sacred science of kriya yoga to the west, I would like to remind the readers that Yogananda himself stated in Autobiography of a Yogi that the science of kriya yoga, though shrouded from the world during the kali yug, has never died on Earth, and has been kept perpetually alive by the yogis and masters of the Himalayas. Yogananda's own lineage extends to and originates in the Himalayas, as Lahiri Mahasaya was initiated by his Sat Guru, the Great Initiator Mahavatar Babaji, in the Himalayan foothills of Ranikhet. In humility and service, Om Tat Sat Om. Hamsacharya dan 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dan, welcome back. Other editors don't seem inclined to include these various Babaji claimants at all. This is still an encyclopedia, after all. I'm willing to consider it, but only if it's done this way, which might make it barely encyclopedic:

• An entirely separate main heading after the 'Kriya Yoga Lineages' heading that says: "Others who teach Kriya, claiming a direct connection to Mahavatar Babaji"
• An intro that says: "Since Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi became popular, many teachers have claimed a direct connection with Mahavatar Babaji. Some of these also claim to teach the Kriya Yoga taught by Babaji. There is no way to verify their claims about meeting Babaji. And since Kriya is given in secret initiation, there's no way of verifying their claims that the Kriya Yoga they teach is at all similar to that given by Babaji to Lahiri Mahasaya."
• Published references and citations that support, in every case, at least the fact that these teachers make these claims of teaching Kriya Yoga, and that they are notable.
• Agreement from other editors.

This would, I think (but am not positive - other editors please give feedback) possibly fulfill WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Priyanath, thanks. I'm not sure how to authenticate this. All I know is that Shailendra Sharma used to meditate with Yogiraj Siddhanath when Sharma was a young man. I'm sure that if he were contacted, he would vouch for the authenticity of Yogiraj and also perhaps Pilot Baba if he knows him. If that's a suitable means of resolution, let me know. Even though it feels repugnant to me to have to justify the authenticity of these two master's whom I consider to be monumental souls (one being my Guru, the other not my Guru), for the sake of you all here who are dedicated to authenticity, I'll be happy to comply. I know that there are certainly "kriya yoga" teachers out there who do not teach the authentic form of kriya yoga. I can attempt to contact Shailendra Sharma and post his response here if that will be suitable to the other editors here. Hamsacharya dan 03:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understood. The only sources allowed on Wikipedia are published sources. In this case, the only thing that could even possibly be verified, and published here, under the heading I suggested above, would be something like "Sidhoji Rao Shitole, who calls himself Gurunath Siddhanath, claims to have met Babaji, and claims to teach Kriya Yoga as taught by Babaji.(published, verifiable, notable reference here)" Shailendra would not be a Wikipedia source, certainly not a verifiable, or reliable one. It would have to be a published source, and a notable one. Please do read those links above that I posted. Even then, I don't know that other editors would allow my suggested heading, intro, and sentence about Siddhanath. Honestly, I don't see the other editors accepting any of this as encyclopedic, even the standards that I'm suggesting. I thought Siddhanath asked that there be no information on WP about him. Why the change of heart? And why, if it's repugnant to you, are you pursuing something that I think is going to cause you as much disappointment as last time, if not more? Personally, I don't are about the authenticity of your Guru or others - Yogananda also said, in response to your first posting, that there would be frauds and charlatans pretending to teach these things. Whether your guru is a master or a charlatan is not really what's at issue for Wikipedia. What's at issue is being enyclopedic, WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They just wanted the article deleted that time because of the state it was in. Bad publicity for them. They are not only spamming Wikipedia, Sidhoji Shit hole is all over youtube.com as well. His vids would show at the top if you search for "Yogananda." Funny that the followers of this fake guru, who believes he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, never cease to capitalize on Yogananda's name even if the two has zero connection with each other. Sidhoji has no real guru, no real lineage (fake Nath), and cannot even substantiate his claim of having a bachelor's degree from Fergusson College (whose article creator decided to kick him out of the notable alumni list for being obviously unnotable). People should not only be vigilant in defending the integrity of Wikipedia from this con artist and his gang but should also go to youtube.com and flag his videos for using a deceptive key word. - Terminator III 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath, your suggestions above for fulfilling Wikipedia's standards are all quite reasonable. Please check out the published sources listed below which were compiled and sent to me by Hamsacharya_Dan. Do confirm with me that these fulfill Wikipedia standards.

• http://www.lightworks.com/MonthlyAspectarian/2006/August/conversation_Yogiraj.html
• http://www.awarenessmag.com/julaug06/ja06_closly_guarded.htm
• http://www.yogitimes.com/los_angeles/articles/09_2005/exploringclassics.html
• http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040407/cth1.htm

Thank you - Silentswan 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no encyclopedic evidence from those articles that 1.this new version of kriya is connected to the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage. or 2.That Siddhanath received Kriya initiation from Mahavatar Babaji (his own claims are not encyclopedic). 3. That the technique is the same as that taught by Lahiri Mahasaya. The term "Kriya Yoga" is now widely understood to be that originally taught by Lahiri Mahasaya. Since I've done more research on this since my suggestions above, I believe this page should just be for the Kriya Yoga of the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage, as it has been all along.

The best solution for other types of Kriya (which is a very common name) is to put it on the Kriya disambiguation page. That's what a disambiguation page is for, to avoid confusing people about different subjects with similar names. An attempt was made once before to do just that, but it was deleted. I would support keeping a link on the disambiguation page if it comes up again, but it would also depend on what other editors think. See the links on the Kriya disambiguation page to Swami Satyananda and to Sudarshan Kriya. This version of kriya by Siddhanath very clearly falls in the same category, but not as the Kriya Yoga taught by Lahiri Mahasaya. In the past, other editors haven't been willing to give it even that much credence, but I think enough citations are out there to put it on the disambiguation page.

With all due respect, I don't think that the claims of one person, Siddhanath, are enough to make the claims encyclopedic, and I see no verifiable reason (or any reason) to include his claims on a page about the Kriya Yoga of Lahiri Mahasaya. ॐ Priyanath talk 01:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I understood that your guru, Siddhanath, wrote a letter requesting that you stop your attempts to publicize him on Wikipedia. Are you going against his wishes? Or did he change his mind? I don't see any other alternatives. I'd like to suggest that since your goal seems to be publicity for him, that you work on his bio article. It's in hideous shape, and desperately needs published references to make it seem believable. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Priyanath,

I do agree with you that mixing in other techniques which use "Kriya" as a tag word is not entirely accurate when we are talking about the Kriya Yoga that was given to Lahiri Mahasaya by the great Mahavatar Babaji. I propose two ways to clarify this point which I think are more accurate than the current method.

1) It seems in terms of lineage, the accurate way to describe Kriya Yoga is "The set of practices which were taught to Lahiri Mahasaya by Mahavatar Babaji in the latter half of the 19th century." I agree that it has become a general failsafe in the Kriya Yoga community to trace the source back to Lahiri Mahasaya, and with often a good reason. This however is only a "rule-of-thumb" but is not anything that seems set in stone. In fact, are there any valid encyclopedic references that make this a fact? I myself went through SRF initially to learn Kriya Yoga but have since come to conclude that it is *possible* that others have learned Kriya Yoga from Mahavatar Babaji and in turn taught it to disciples. It is documented and generally accepted that Mahavatar Babaji travelled with a small group of highly advanced Yogis. What precludes us from accepting that those Yogis, or even the great Master himself transmitted Kriya Yoga to other branches? Sure, we cannot know for sure if this is the case, but I think anyone note-able who is teaching the Kriya Yoga that Mahavatar Babaji gave to Lahiri Mahasaya does deserve due mention.

2) This brings me to my second point, how do we define that Kriya Yoga which Mahavatar Babaji taught Lahiri Mahasaya? I propose we further define it using the well documented sources that break down the techniques of Kriya Yoga as we know them, like so:

Kriya Yoga consists of:

• A central practice of Pranayama known as the Kriya breath, breathing up & down the central channel of the spine, known as the Sushumna Nadi. This breath is practiced using a certain sound both subtly audible, and a corollary internal mantra. There is also a hot & cold sensation associated with this breath as well as a visualization. (note: can put in more detail about oxidation of the blood as well as magnetization of the spine)
• Kechari Mudra, also known as the skywalking mudra which initially involves connecting an upturned tongue to the roof of the mouth, and eventually reversing the tongue up through the nasal cavity and touching the bone structure right beneath the pituitary gland. (Note: Not all branches decended from Mahavatar Babaji teach this technique, but Lahiri Mahasaya did).
• Mahamudra, a set of three forward bend leg stretches which incorporate the Kriya Breath as well as the Bhandas in some traditions. This practice is central to every Kriya Yoga teaching.
• Jyoti Mudra, also known as Yoni Mudra - a well known Yogic technique of using the hands to apply pressure at specific points on the faces, concurrently blocking off all light & sound and focusing within on the Ajna Chakra. In the Kriya tradition, this practice also incorporates the Kriya Breath and occasionally the Bhandas.
• Omkar Kriya, a practice taught by some Kriya tradition which incorporates listening and tuning the sound of OM using the 7 Chakra system.
• Nabhi Kriya, also known as Nabho Kriya - a practice which incorporates a modified form of the Kriya Breath, the Bhandas and the Manipur, or Navel Chakra. This practice is only taught by some Kriya traditions, but was given to Lahiri Mahasaya by Mahavatar Babaji.
• Second Kriya, Third Kriya, Fourth Kriya, other Kriyas whose specifics are not well documented but are taught to advanced students based on the discretion of their specific Sat-Guru. Lahiri Mahasaya received these practices from Mahavatar Babaji and taught them occasionally.

I believe if we work towards defining Kriya Yoga in this way it will be much clearer to discern who is teaching the original form. Rather than naming names, this should very much clear up some that should go on the 'Kriya' Wiki and some which should be included on this page. From my research, YGS does actually teach these techniques listed above and when he speaks of "Kriya Yoga" he is very much referring to the set of practices which Mahavatar Babaji taught Lahiri Mahasaya and which he claims he received as well from Mahavatar Babaji. I do agree that claims are hard to verify, and that is why they should be documented as claims, but the set of practices which we call Kriya Yoga are documented.

Priyanath and all other sincere editors, please share your thoughts. I have stayed out of previous discussions on this topic because I wholly believe in Master Yogananda's tenant that "fools argue and wise men discuss." I believe there is room for all opinions, but ultimately we should document the understanding and current state of Kriya Yoga accurately. I see no reason to disclude a mention of YGS in so far as all claims remain as claims and that the set of practices he teaches are verified to be those that we call Kriya Yoga. Also, I would like to re-iterate that the point is not publicity for YGS or his organization, but rather to make an inclusive but accurate definition and statement of fact of what Kriya Yoga is and who is teaching it. This is a fair and balanced proposal, yes?

Silentswan 08:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If we want to document and state Kriya Yoga accurately, then there is no place for YGS on the Kriya Yoga page. All the claims are just claims, questionable at best, and are not even close to being encyclopedic. There is no encyclopedic evidence of any connection between your 'Kriya Yoga' Mahavatar Babaji and Lahiri Mahasaya, which is what this Kriya Yoga is about. It would be marginally encyclopedic to have a Kriya Yoga (Hamsa Yoga) page, but I wouldn't object to that, though there would be a need for Different Views on that page if there are claims that run contrary to published sources. I also wouldn't object to a Kriya Yoga (Hamsa Yoga) link on the Kriya disambiguation page, even though that might be non-notable and unencyclopedic. Other editors may not be as obliging as myself. It does appear to me that you are trying to promote your version of Kriya Yoga, which might explain why you're trying so hard to put unencyclopedic claims into this article. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kriya yoga (Hamsa Yoga) is not an accurate disambiguation, as you are speaking about two different yoga techniques.

The question here is, is this Kriya Yoga article about a technique or is it about a parampara. If its about a technique, then the technique should be the focus of the article, and parampara is not relevant to the article. In this situation, anybody who teaches the specific technique, and if this can be verified encyclopedically, should be included in the article. So this requires a strict definition of the technique, without giving away the sacred yogic practices. Discrepencies between modern practices taught by established kriya yoga teachers/organizations and the "original kriya" taught by Lahiri Mahasaya have already been noted in spade:

Ex. 1: Shailendra Sharma After [Lahiri Mahasaya's] demise, some lines of his disciples have maintained the practice of this mystic Yogic art. I belong to one line of disciples which although was not very famous but was able to maintain the strict standard of this mystic art From Shailendraji's website

Ex. 2: Sailendra Bejoy Das Gupta: In his methods of initiation into Kriya also Swami Yogananda added innovations. Perceiving that the average American found it difficult to sit in lotus posture, he taught that he could sit erect on a straight-back armless chair, legs hanging, and practise Kriya; initiation was also a mass affair. Instead of direct contact between the teacher and the taught – the Guru and the novice – the whole affair was reduced to something like an indoor class. Another startling innovation was that second or the third Kriya was allowed to be practised without having to do Kechari Mudra ["tongue-lifting"]. All these innovations or rather deviation from the regular methods could not find favour with devotees and lovers of Kriya Yoga... Dasgupta, Sailendra B. Kriya Yoga. Ch 5, section "Kriya Yoga Goes to America and the West." Battle Creek, Mich: Yoganiketan, 2006. Formerly: Kriya Yoga and Sri Yukteshvar. Portland, Me: Yoganiketan, 1998. Yoga Niketan Library Online.

There is no encyclopedic evidence in this article to give credence to the claim that the technique taught by Satyeshwarananda is the same as the one taught by Ashok Kumar Chatterjee is the same as the one taught by Shibendu Lahiri is the same as the one taught by Shailendra Sharma is the same as the one taught by SRF is the same as the original of Lahiri Mahasaya. Hamsacharya dan 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, parampara is not only relevant to Kriya Yoga as taught by Lahiri Mahasaya, but is central to it. It is given through initiation from guru to disciple. 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. YGS has started his own lineage, as has Govindan, Elizabeth Holman, Mangeshda, and others too numerous to count - they multiply daily it seems. Additionally, there is much discussion between lesser teachers of the different schools complaining about the validity of the technique given by other teachers. Many of these lesser teachers proclaim to have the original or authentic Kriya Yoga. I've learned many things about this from other lineages in India, including much to discredit your Shailendra Sharma, but all of this is unencyclopedic. What's encyclopedic is that Kriya Yoga was given by Lahiri Mahasaya as initiation. He empowered others to continue the guru-disciple lineage, which continues to this day. An alternative for you would be a page that says Kriya Yoga (Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath). ॐ Priyanath talk 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

moved to new title for better visibility Ravindra 07:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Is AOY acceptable evidence?

With all due respect to Yoganandji, The book written by him invoked in me, the urge for seeking spiritual guidance and led me through the most magical and dramatic turn of events to find my beloved gurudev and I cannot be ungrateful for his book for bring about these changes in my life.

And I am sure it has done the same for other seekers.

However, a simple question I ask my friends is that:
The 'book' in itself which is so far being touted as encyclopedic evidence is only yoganandji's claims to have received initiation via the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage and that Lahiri Mahasaya having been initiated by Babaji himself, should that be considered as evidence to authenticate the claims made in itself?

So, is holding it as the only and absolute evidence in accordance with Wiki Standards?

Also, is the evidence in this form of self published sources a Wiki standard?

Further more, what is in that book except claims? why then do thousands of souls hold it as authentic, is that without an element of something called 'faith' ?

If there are charlatans in this age, weren't there any, a century ago?

The lineage is a premise to protect and not the technique, if the technique could be given by Babaji to Lahiri Mahasaya then it could be given to anybody, who will validate and more importantly how will anyone validate all the claims made by everyone without the same element of 'faith'?

Or will every such Sadguru have to publish his/her own autobiography and wait for 100 years before it can become evidence?

I know one thing for sure and that is, even two disciples of the same sadguru will not receive the 'exact' same technique from the master, cause the master has to make it digestible according to the individuals’ capability that's the very reason why a guru is required. Otherwise, anyone could possibly read a book and become a yogi.

Has the 'original' and 'authentic' technique ever been documented? And I doubt if it ever will be. Yoganandji himself had to adapt some things like pronunciation of certain words to make them suitable for the western way of speech

Furthermore, I would like to bring a correction into this whole discussion; Kriya Yoga has been passed down to his disciples by Babaji who further hand it down to their disciples through the guru-sishya parampara.

Lahiri Mahasaya was just one such recipient of Babaji's grace made famous only by AOY.

So, calling his lineage authentic is again a matter of answering:
1. Can AOY be considered as valid evidence and not just another self published claim?
2. Even if it is considered valid evidence, how can it be validated that the post AOY Lahiri Mahasaya lineage is passing on the authentic technique? Or has it been documented in the AOY itself like everything else?

Ravindra 08:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that other sources from the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage would help balance the reliance on one source - but those sources support what Yogananda said in his Autobiography. I'm happy to add them. The reason that AOY is such a good encyclopedic source is that the author, in addition to being a practicing Kriya Yogi and Guru, had many close relationships with disciples of Lahiri Mahasaya—his parents, his sanskrit tutor, his Guru. In addition, as a youth he also spent time with other very advanced disciples of Lahiri Mahasaya, such as Swami Pranabananda Giri. When he went back to India, the disciples of Lahiri Mahasaya were very open to being interviewed by Yogananda—Lahiri Mahasaya's wife, Keshabananda, Lahiri's children, etc. As a purely journalistic (and therefore encyclopedic) account, it's the best available and absolutely unique. Other Lahiri lineage encyclopedic (published) sources now confirm Yogananda's accounts in the AOY. Yogananda had a very broad view of the different Lahiri sub-lineages—I think that's why the narrow and petty jealousies that seem to crop up in some individual lines are absent in his writings and life.

I'm seeing quite a bit of un-professional jealousy here from pop guru-to-the-west wannabees (or maybe just from their devotees), with their entirely un-encyclopedic (and frankly, unbelievable) claims. This is still an encyclopedia after all. Sad gurus indeed. ॐ Priyanath talk 17:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

==========================================================================================================

I would like to take a moment here and say what my heart says
I have better things to direct my energy to rather than engage in controversy and slander
However, I feel I should put down my thoughts and so I am: My stance on this matter is clear

1. This is an encyclopedia after all and it has to have a neutral stand on the information presented
2. I am seeing here currently, the Kriya_Yoga page held hostage to one lineage
   How can the lineages represent the absolute? they are a part of the whole and not absolute
   The only true lineage there is to Kriya Yoga is that of Yogiraj Mahavatar Babaji
3. The question is also not about whose claims could be true and whose couldn’t
   The real question is what should be considered as a proof
   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
   And so they will obviously be absent in his writings
   So, by this standard, technically anyone post 1951 should be considered devoid of any proof of "passing on the same technique"
   And this should be applicable to anyone and everyone since it cannot be validated
4. The kriya page should be released from the bondage of lineages
   All individuals/organizations claiming to practice or teaching kriya yoga should then appear as a separate section from a link from the kriya page
5. Whether that organizations page is fit for Wikipedia or not is a matter external to this discussion

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
On the other hand, same person displayed them both in own thoughts and opinions

1. Writing negatively about others, making personal attacks and name calling
2. Having also exhibited double standards-

Having written this:
"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:
"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?

202.75.200.7 14:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

kriyayoga (outer tantras of tibetan buddhism)

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)

More specific disambiguation

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)

List of lineages

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

Character of the article

That piece is an act of advertizing, not of a descriptive academic character as one would expect if it is included in something bearing the venerable title "Encyclopaedia" !

The sentence (in the introd. section) stating that it was "a system of yoga... hastening spir. development...[whatever that is supposed to be - a catch phrase if there ever existed one]" best summes up what I am pointing at: just like taken out of a catalogue of New Age (or similar) merchandize...

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.186.54 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2007

!!!! "New age" is an interesting title to apply to an ancient practice. The description is accurate. It's goal is to indeed hasten spirtual development. To each his own. go bother another article.

Lineage/teachers section

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)

Difference in Techniques

In SRF and other Kriya circles the often asked question is: "What are the differences between the various Kriya lineages?" and what role had/has "Khecari Mudra?" Most groups pretend that theirs is the TRUE Kriya. An objective paragraph pointing to the differences is called for. Walter Elyon 22:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not an objective paragraph, it's an entirely subjective one. Also, it's using sources that don't qualify under one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Please read WP:RS, and WP:POV to see why this paragraph keeps getting removed, and will continue to be removed. That question is best answered on a blog or personal website, not in an encyclopedia that depends on Neutral Point of View and Reliable Sources. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

---

This is exactly the point here: It is the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. It portrays both views those of SRF and those who disagree with SRF. In your posts you only represent one side, namely that of SRF, which is extremely biased. After all, the AY is a one sided account just as the account "KRIYA" by Satyeswarananda or the claims of Shibendu Lahiri, both in his discussions and on the internet. Furthermore, your arguments throughout Wikipedia are exceptionally prejudiced, which surfaces, for instance, on the discussion page about the Dual Star Theory on Sri Yukteswar. Walter Elyon 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL, now you're wikistalking me to find comments I make on other article talk pages to show that I'm "exceptionally prejudiced"? If something is supported by WP:RS, it can be added to an article. (As an aside, Yogananda taught kechari mudra, and did not require the kriya technique to be practiced in strict silence. Those authors you quote are most unreliable sources, and are pushing their own POV....) ~ priyanath ^talk 00:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Great, thanks for answering!

Re: Prejudice – pages like that constitute what I love about Wikipedia.

Re Silence: For GROUP meditations the repeated admonition at all SRF convocations and centers is: "The techniques should be practiced so that the neighbor does not hear anything". And from the Kriya Lessons: "Now inhale calmly and slowly, through the mouth and nose simultaneously, making the barely audible sound of 'AW'”. By comparison, the demonstrations of Kriya Pranayama by Shibendu were rather noisy.

Re Stalking: I was interested in the personal predisposition of the “remover” and just looked at one entry given on your own talk page. BTW, The Dual Star Theory of Yukteswar which SRF has adopted is an enigma not easily decipherable. Equally obscure is the associated assertion of a grand center called Vishnunabhi. If the Dual Star and Vishnunabhi are on the astral plane and our sun is on the physical plane science will not find the answer to these phenomena in the current yuga (to stick with vedic terminology).

While I personally like Yogananda and applaud the principle that the “Lessons are the guru”, the page about Kriya Yoga should reflect scientific honesty. There are different groups and traditions. The “Kriya Wars” which are raging between the congregations around Kriyanada, Hariharananda, Shibendu, Satyeswarananda, SRF and others should (IMHO) be counteracted with factual information. Walter Elyon 02:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources to understand why satyeswarananda and self-published websites are not reliable sources, and why the section will continue to be removed using similar sources. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. There is no evidence that Yogananda ever made that statement about 'lessons are the guru'. One disciples says so, others dispute it. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what Yogananda did, write a book and publish it himself (through his own organization).

PS. Did you mean one disciple (without plural s) or more disciples (plural)? Walter Elyon 03:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Read up on Reliable Sources here: WP:RS. 'Lecture notes' are not a published verifiable source. Nor is a self-published book by someone (Satyeswarananda) whose article was deleted here because nobody could find any neutral third-party references about him. Yogananda's book (Autobiography of a Yogi) was first published by Philosophical Library, a notable New York publishing house at the time (and the only edition that is reliably his own words, by the way). That alleged statement by Yogananda is quoted by one disciple (possibly legitimate but taken out of context if so), propagated by his organization, and disputed by others. ~ priyanath ^talk 14:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)