Talk:Kriya yoga

/summary -This is a barebones version for use in initiating translations to other languages. Please do not remove or expand . Feel free to enter essential only data.--Jondel 01:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

January 3 Version Restored[edit]

Page has been restored to how it was in 03 January 2006, before it has been littered with book exerpts and shameless self promotion of someone who is neither a Nath Yogi (no real sampradaya) nor a Kriya Yogi from the lineage of the Mahavatar Babaji mentioned in Autobiography of a Yogi by Paramahansa Yogananda.

Massive self-promotion page busted. See Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath

I can surely agree to your reverting this page to the essence of Kriya Yoga. Priyanath 05:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath[reply]

I would suggest caution here, as YGS does teach something that he calls Kriya yoga. In this case, it would be rather hard to put it in a separate article. My suggestion would be to be a little flexible here and allow a brief reference. But here's a question, YGS teaches something called Hamsa yoga - shouldn't that have it's own article? And what is the relation in YGS's system between these two yogas - is his Kriya yoga part of his Hamsa yoga? or vice versa? or are they completely separate. Enquiring minds want to know... –Adityanath 06:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a very brief one reference (like a sentence) is ok, but the 'Undue Weight' given it by HD was, well, Undue, as I mentioned to him below. I'm happy to see the 'reset' button hit to get a fresh start on this bigger discussion, in which some of us were hoodwinked. See Wikipedia guidelines on Undue Weight: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOVUW#Undue_weight. The discussion on YGS could begin again after some cooling off, over whether YGS view is a 'tiny-minority' flat-earth type view (see article), or just a minority view.-Priyanath 15:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath[reply]

Updates to Kriya Yoga[edit]

Yes, I'd like to start a discussion with anyone interested in an up to date Kriya Yoga page.

It can be agreed that Kriya Yoga's origins are traced to Mahavatar Babaji, and that the spread of Kriya yoga throughout the world was revived by Babaji's disciple Lahiri Mahasaya. It can also be agreed that Paramahansa Yogananda popularized the ancient practice in the west, and that Yogananda was a great Master.

It should be noted that there are other sources of information besides Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi. Though it is a masterpiece, it is not the only worthy literature on the subject Kriya Yoga. In fact Wings to Freedom by Gurunath contains knowledge about the Superconscious states of Samadhi that Yogananda never revealed. It also contains a great deal of information about Mahavatar Babaji that elucidates this Beings origins and nature.

If you have a reason for constantly deleting this knowledge from the updates, please make it clear so that we can attempt to come to an agreement. I have never erased nor altered someone elses wording, despite my personal bias, and I would expect the same from others.

I don't know who is deleting your posts in their entirety - I have been moving your posts, and editing them to the appropriate length, and will continue to do so. I believe that you're using these pages (Kriya Yoga and Mahavatar Babaji) to promote your Guru and his book above other Kriya teachers. I find your lengthy posts, and insistence on burying other lineages by the placement and length of your posts, to be as uncompromising as the person who is deleting them entirely.

However, in the spirit of compromise, I do believe that Other Lineages that claim a direct connection to Babaji, even though they sometimes contradict each other, and Yogananda, have their place here, under Other Lineages.

Lahiri Mahasaya and his lineage, inlcuding Paramhansa Yogananda, are universally respected by Kriya Yogis of all lines in India, U.S., and Europe. They introduced Kriya Yoga to the world. They are universally considered to be the authority of Kriya Yoga. Since that time, others like Govindan and Siddhanath have claimed a direct connection to Babaji. Again, even though these others contradict each other, they should be listed here.

The length of your posts are inappropriate, and an obvious attempt to promote your teacher and his book. Please read my comments on the Mahavatar Babaji discussion page about this, and a helpful suggestion for you to promote your teacher with his own Wikipedia page.

Also, I suggest you become a member when you post, or make your changes using only your member name, and also to post your name here in the discussion. Look up the Wikipedia guidelines on this (including how to post your name and time stamp as I've done below), and on these other issues that we're discussin.

Priyanath 20:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath[reply]

In order to communicate more fully the reasons for editing of this page, I'm explaining here (rather than making wholesale changes with no explanation, as people have been doing). I hope others will start showing the same consideration.

1. Changed introduction to more accurately reflect where the vast majority of people have heard of Kriya Yoga, through the lineage of Lahiri Mahasaya and through Yogananda's Autobiography of a Yogi.

2. Added Yogananda's explanation of Kriya Yoga for same reason.

Please read Wikipedia guidelines on Neutral Point of View, especially the Undue Weight section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOVUW

I point that out because the vast majority of practicing Kriya Yogis are undoubtedly from the Lahiri Mahasaya lineage, through Yogananda and others. There are several other 'direct-from-Babaji' lines that teach Kriya in varying ways that are clearly a minority view. As the guidelines point out, they should be represented in Wikipedia pages, but attempts to portray them as the majority view are not following the Wikipedia guidelines.

3. Tweaked the Yamas and Niyamas to reflect a more majority view of their meanings, making them more in line with the Wikipedia sections on Yamas and Niyamas. Bramhacharya, for example, in practice means non-sensuality in general, not merely non-illicit sex, which is a much more narrow understanding of the term.

Priyanath 21:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath[reply]

If you have not audited the Kriya Yoga world, you have no basis for this argument. This is your opinion solely. hamsacharya dan.

I've audited the Kriya world for many years, and have discussed Kriya Yoga with followers from many traditions. I've also practiced Kriya for many years. These opinions are not mine, but are widely accpeted. I respect the devotion that you have for your Guru, but I have to say that others don't give it the same pre-eminence that you're trying to give it here.

Also note that I'm not the one deleting all of your passages. Apparently someone as strongly opinionated as yourself has been doing that. I've re-inserted your missives a few times, out of respect for the right of other Kriya lineages to have their say, even if it is an extreme minority POV.

Priyanath 02:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath[reply]

Priya Nath, we both have integrity for what we believe. I think in other circumstances we would be friends. I have never felt the desire to step on others toes, but only to add what I feel to be quality information in an attempt to enrich other peoples lives. I also feel the need to cite my sources, out of respect for their work. I've always stood up above all for the deepest truths, and I think you too - Kriya yogis are usually advanced souls. I do feel the need to include references to the contributions of my guru because I have an intense conviction that his contributions are of the highest possible quality available this day in age. I have had countless extraordinary experiences by the grace of Gurunath that would have to be experienced to be believed, so needless to say, my faith in him is unequivocal, and I feel deeply blessed to be in the satsang of a living master. I am a neuroscientist by training - so I can safely tell you that I have a very rigorous and meticulous scientific nature - I am not the type to believe in things easily, so I do feel my judgment is relatively refined. There are many many teachers, but very very few Masters. I have experienced the satsang of both types - many teachers and a few masters - and know the difference. I wish for people to understand the difference so that they know what their options are. Nevertheless I have not overburdened wikipedia with my Masters knowledge base, but have attempted solely to give them equal representation. I also notice that you are a Nath yogi as well, as you have taken the birth name of Sri Yukteswar! I'd be interested to hear about your background if you feel inclined to share! Hamsacharya dan 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamsacharya Dan, I feel that you are stepping on the toes of the majority by going against the Wiki guidelines on Neutral Point of View and Undue Weight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOVUW

I respect the feelings you have about your Guru, but to try and make him Yogananda's equal, or superior, by promoting your minority view is not the right use of Wikipedia. Even if you feel to give him 'equal representation', well, read the Undue Weight guidelines, please.

Again, I respect your feelings about the path you are on, but feel that your approach here has been heavy-handed. I have equal respect for the other Kriya guru lines that I've had contact with, including Govindan disciples. Since your Guru's claims contradict Govindan, and even seem to disagree with Yogananda in subtle ways, that's why they should be just 'claims', in my opinion (and I believe the majority opinion agrees, which is an important part of Wikipedia articles and disputes). And that's why they shouldn't have the 'equal representation' to the Yogananda and Lahiri line, who the vast majority trust and respect.

With all due respect, do you think you're helping to promote your Guru's cause by continually moving his understanding of Kriya to the top of the Kriya Yoga page, and moving Lahiri/Yogananda's understanding down?

No, I am not a Nath yogi, and neither was Sri Yukteswar, who I honor with my username. That was his birth name, and unless his parents were Nath yogis (doubtful), then his name was like many, many in India that have the 'nath' ending. Either way, he took on the name Sriyukteswar, which is not a Nath name.

All that said, I think there is a place for your Guru on the Kriya Yoga and Babaji pages, even though a few others think there should be no place at all. Or, perhaps they too are objecting to the Undue Weight you are trying to give to the Siddhanath line, and are responding by deleting it altogether, rather than my more friendly approach.

I have a great amount of respect for anyone on the path of Yoga, and the various Kriya paths, even though I have my own which I follow (which is not important here, because I don't want to promote 'my' way over others, or even as equal to others in this case). I'm sure you have had great results from your practices and Guru's blessings, and I am guessing your zeal here is because of that.

Priyanath 16:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Priyanath[reply]

Content removed because it was slanderous and mean spirited. Not at all helpful to this discussion and was in no way verified.

In Response[edit]

nuts - your hatefulness betrays your distorted mind. Gurunath welcomes all.

Priyanath - there are no contradictions with Yogananda and Gurunath. You must keep things in context. DIfferent Yogas also appear to have contradictions, but they are also all the same. 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 are always the ones that find fault and contradiction. The one's that have realized the Truth laugh at our 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

As the person who created this article nearly two years ago, I was interested to discover the discussions on this article which have intensified recently. I created the article just after reading Autobiography of a Yogi, and think that Yogananda is the most well-known kriya yogi, but other teachers should be mentioned as well. Academic Challenger 00:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing us that the motivation for the creation of this page is Autobiography of a Yogi and, therefore, the Kriya yoga that is being referred to in this article is a specific one i.e. the one mentioned in Autobiography of a Yogi. You may be aware that there are others who also call their style of Yoga Kriya yoga among them are Swami Satyananda of Bihar School of Yoga and his many students, Swami Atmananda (author of "Everything You Wanted to Know about Kriya Yoga"), SAA Ramaiah and his student Marshall Govindan, etc. The aforementioned yogas, though clearly a namesake of the Kriya yoga taught by Paramahansa Yogananda are completely different from it and are not recognized by the legitimate lineage (i.e. Mahavatar Babaji thru Lahiri Mahasaya) which Yogananda represented.

I completely agree that other teachers of the same Kriya yoga mentioned by Paramahansa Yogananda in his Autobiography of a Yogi should also be mentioned. Any qualified representative of other lineages descending from Lahiri Mahasaya who wishes to add the name of his or her teacher in this article will be welcomed with open arms.

Thank you for gracing us with your presence.

No To Frauds 01:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keeping "expanded content edit"[edit]

This is a more informative edit. I think it's better and we should keep it. Any objections? unsigned message by User:Hamsacharya dan

Yes, I object. Too many changes. Put additions related to YGS in a separate section. Do not change the rest of the article. That's my opinion. Also, wait for responses before making changes. —Adityanath 04:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object. It's way too long in my opinion - and I added some of those words and quotes myself so I'm being objective. Let's keep it to the essence of Kriya Yoga. I'm also getting tired of the continual re-adding of the extreme minority POV about the Naths and YGS. Put it on those pages if the other editors there allow it, but there's no place for it here. Priyanath 05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Adityanath and Priyanath. I know you still think I'm a sockpuppet, so feel free to ignore my opinion until proven otherwise. It's still two-to-one and you know what side NTF would be on, so... ---Baba Louis 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Let's leave it in this format. However, I do have some qualms with the "other lineages" section, which I'll start in the next subtopic. Hamsacharya dan 02:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other lineages[edit]

As it currently is, it's full of external links. These should properly be moved to the external links section - the teachers can still be ref'd by name, but the links should be moved out - unless there's consensus here as to otherwise. I also would like to include YGS as a lineage - it is a legitimate lineage, and has larger internet visibility than several of the other teachers mentioned, so it is not minority in that regard. I'll leave it to one sentence, and you all can follow up with nPOV verification. Any qualms here? Hamsacharya dan 01:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, I agree with the external links all being moved to the external links section. But the re-organizing of the Kriya groups doesn't make sense the way you arrange it. Here's why: Under 'Western Organizations' that teach Kriya you list five organizations. Three of them are world-wide organizations, with significant ashrams in India. One of them (Hariharananda) was founded an Indian who lived in India. Another, Self-Realization Fellowship, was founded by an Indian (Yogananda), and began in India as Yogoda-Satsanga. A third, Ananda, was founded by a westerner who now lives in India, and who has ashrams in India. The 'Indian Gurus' section also has similar flaws.

But the old way of organizing it also didn't make sense. I've made an attempt to organize the list by the different lineages, because that says alot more about their Kriya type and where it came from. It also speaks, I believe, to the main interest that people will have in the different gurus and organizations. I think the short descriptions should also be tweaked to make clear just what their lineage is.

Adityanath and Dan, please let's discuss it here. — Priyanath 05:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine Priyanath. Hamsacharya dan 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

62.218.74.114 edits[edit]

Please consider joining Wikipedia and learning more about Wikipedia. Especially read:

Your recent edits are being reverted for a few reasons. For example, you deleted one of the 'Kriya Yoga Lineages' for no reason (Dr.Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee), and moved another one to the top of the list (Paramahamsa Hariharananda). Some of your other edits seem reasonable, but when you combine them with edits that are promoting one particular group, and demoting another, editors may not have the patience to sift through all your changes. This article has been the scene of recent controversy, so anonymous unexplained edits will tend to be reverted by different editors, especially when they violate the Neutral Point of View guidelines. Also, learn to use the talk pages to discuss your edits with others. An explanation may be all you need do to prevent someone from reverting. ॐ Priyanath 16:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Please compare the differences first before you revert. I have never deleted Dr. Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee under 'Kriya Yoga lineages.' What are you talking about? Also the former list did not follow any arrangement pattern for anyone to accuse me of demoting other lineages. In the external links section Self-Realization Fellowship was placed on top because it was the first established Kriya Yoga organization among the list, it was followed by three or for more others based on the dates they were founded. I have also added Center for Spiritual Awareness' website as well as Yogiar S.A.A. Ramaiah's, Håå Course Center, etc and corrected the links so that they point directly to the relevant pages. Please exclude me from your edit wars. --- ॐ Brahmachari Smith 16:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding, Brahmachari Smith. I did compare, and apparently didn't notice that you just moved Ashoke Kumar Chatterjee down the list, rather than deleting him - my apologies. Your reasons for your particular arrangement are somewhat arbitrary, but not important enough to make it an issue. But the fact that you communicated it here is notable and refreshing. I hope you didn't take offense at my suggestions to study Wikipedia, especially using the talk pages for communication. The reason I made that (friendly) suggestion is for the sole purpose of not having edit wars. The edit wars aren't mine, so I'm sorry that I can't exclude you from them. But you took a big step in keeping others from edit warring you, by following my advice above, "An explanation may be all you need do to prevent someone from reverting.." Communication works, see? I've reformatted the subject headings, since there was one that should be a subject head under your new arrangement. I also shortened them, since subject headings should be brief phrases, and not entire sentences. I also removed two extra line breaks that were introduced somewhere along the way. Thank you for communicating. ॐ Priyanath 18:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preposed Inclusion of Tibetan Buddhist (Vajrayana) References[edit]

Kriya yoga as Sri Yoganandaji hath mentioned had been cloaked in secrecy by priests. This is perhaps a reference to highly secretive and esoteric practices within Tantric ritual. Remnants of the ritualised form of Kriya may be evidenced in the Buddhist cannonical scriptures - particularly within Vajrayana (the 'Lightening Path'). Here we see that there are various levels of Tantra and Kriya Yoga belongs to one of the 'Lower'/'Outer'/'Preliminary' Tantras.

Quote:

Kriya Yoga (bya ba'i rnal 'byor). The first of the three outer tantras which places emphasis on cleanliness and pure conduct. The scriptures of Kriya Tantra appeared first in Varanasi. ref: http://www.rangjung.com/rootfiles/ryp-glossary.htm (scroll down to 'Kriya Yoga')

Kriya Yoga is also referred to as 'Kriya Tantra' or is closely linked with the term (bya ba rgyud, bya rgyud or bya ba'i rgyud) - One of the four tantras which empahsizes personal purity. (ref. from www.vajravidhya.com and http://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php?title=Kriya_Tantra&curid=184801&diff=192141&oldid=192140)

Also, Kriya Yoga is mentioned in the following publications found on the Internet (there are many more mentions within Vajrayana translations into English now out-of-print or not available on the Web).

Introduction to the Buddhist Tantric Systems By: Lessing & Wayman

Description of the book: "The survey of Buddhist Tantras by Mkhas-grub-rje (1385-1438 A.D.)...He then sketches the Kriya, Carya, Yoga, and Anuttarayoga tantra divisions, showing the generation of self into deity and generation of deity in front, the remarkable meditations of dwelling in the flame and in the sound, numerous definitions of tantric terms, the rich correspondence system of the Yogatantra, the difference between 'Father Tantra' and "Mother Tantra', mandala ritual including the various kinds of 'initiation' or 'consecration'" (quoted from http://www.namsebangdzo.com/product_p/12824.htm&Click=1171)

Highest Yoga Tantra: An Introduction to the Esoteric Buddhism of Tibet By: Cozort, Daniel

3 references in 'Journey Without Goal : The Tantric Wisdom of the Buddha' by Chogyam Trungpa

Of course traditionally there have been many debates about which Tantra is superior the Buddhist (stemming from Mahayana Madhyamika & Vijnanavada schools) or the 'Hindu'. Some say the Tantras are completely different and some say they have the same source and some remain impartial. Regardless, the fact that Kriya Yoga is mentioned in Vajrayana deserves a mention in this wikipedia article as it is formally studied and taught (in Western forms of scholarship like 'Buddhology'/'Buddhism' and in traditional Tibetan contexts in monestaries and by house-holder lay Tantric masters) as well as being practiced by various Vajrayana traditions.

Mahavatar Babaji has been mentioned even amongst Kriya Masters and Himalayan Yogis as associating with Tibetan monks and being seen in Tibet and Nepal(ie. Sri Lahiri Mahasaya, Sri Yoganandaji ,and Baba Hari Das in his 'Hariakhan Baba: Known, Unknown' equates Hariakhan Baba with Mahavatar Babaji just as Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath equates Him with Gorakshanath Babaji. Baba Hari Das also compiled photos of Hariakhan Baba wearing Tibetan robes and holding a Tibetan prayer wheel and mentions many Tibetan monks would perform sadhana in tents near where Babaji would meditate).

In reference, to enquires below it must be understood that Babaji, thou expounding/teaching/initiating Kriya in the new age, is not confined to that Yoga exclusively. There are many other practices and techniques that He has full knowledge of and mastered. When He finds the current channel He will bestow a suitable teaching for very specific purposes that pertain to the evolution of human consciousness. Even in 'Autobiography of a Yogi' Babaji is said to have given Sri Lahiri Mahasaya a sort of heated oil that He had prepared to cleanse the body of impurities. What is this oil and from what tradition? Most probably related to the Siddha tradition. Also, in the book it is mentioned that Babaji is performing an Agni Hotra Vedic ritual. What Agni Homa is He performing? Is it the same one that is practiced throughout India on a daily basis? It is not clarified. Also, in Satyeswarananda Giri books it mentions that Babaji shows Satyeswarananda Giri how He got His present form and the technique seems to be a very advanced Tantric Siddha method of transforming the physical body completely. Babaji mentions that this can also be done with use of calling bees to swarm the body and then utilising various techniques a body transformation may take place. Babaji also enlightens Satyeswarananda Giri on various other ways to do Kriya - one that surprises Satyeswarananda Giri is the practice of performing over 100 Kriyas in one breath - inspiration and expiration. What Kriya technique is this? You see how Babaji is not limited by Kriya Yoga at all. He goes beyond this practice even. So it is not surpising to me in the least if new channels make their way to His presence either in dreams, visions or in the far reaches of the Himalayas to receive new teachings that no one had ever really heard of before in the mainstream. Hamsa Yoga is not that very well known in the mainstream but in the Himalayas among yogis/sadhus the techniques Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath teaches are known. Hamsa Yoga is related to Kriya Yoga, but they are not the same practice entirely. Just as Mahamudra is slightly different and is taught slightly different by various Kriya Masters. A Master can re-organise or modify techniques to suit the needs of the people of the time or the individual at their stage of evolution - just as Ved Vyas did with the Vedas. A Nath needs a Parampara as a bridge and once the other shore is reached that Parampara is transformed into the Lord and given praise first at the request of the Lord and then one gives pranams to the Lord. Names and Forms merge into the Infinite.

May all be guided by His/Her Divine grace!!! 213.106.1.25 10:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]

It is also noteworthy to mention that Kriya Yoga is said to be linked with Hatha Yoga and Ashtanga Yoga, as well as, Raja Yoga. Some saying it is a the synthesis and culmination of all three Yogas.

Another derivitive or variation of Kriya Yoga is 'Sudarshan Kriya' as taught by Sri Ravi Shankar.

Hi Shaninath, While it's interesting discussion, there is no evidence that the Kriya Yoga tantra is anything like the Kriya Yoga of Babaji, or has any relationship at all. It's described as an 'outer tantra', while Babaji's Kriya Yoga is not outward, and places more emphasis on the inner practice, not outward 'cleanliness and pure conduct'.

The various Babaji claims have already been well discussed on the Mahavatar Babaji article, and already have more space there than I think is deserved by their questionable credence. But every Point of View deserves it's space, and so they must remain there.

Your other interesting ideas about Babaji are good evening yogi campfire talk, but not notable enough, or even citable at all, to be in an encyclopedia article.

The Sudarshan Kriya is an entirely different technique, teaching, lineage, and path. It deserves its own page, which it has, here: Sudarshan Kriya

I suggest that the Kriya page is the proper place to mention and link to Sudarshan Kriya, or to Tibetan Kriya (a new page, perhaps?), assuming that you can cite references that are not just websites. Those other Kriyas should not be mentioned here, because they have no relation to the Kriya Yoga of Mahavatar Babaji.

Like other discussions we've had on the subject of Babaji: the majority POV, and even a vote, concluded that the way it's presented here and on the Mahavatar Babaji page present more than enough of these possibly interesting, but definitely speculative and minority 'ideas'. I suggest a personal website is the place for these things, not an encyclopedia article. Cheers, and good luck. ॐ Priyanath 23:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see now that Sudarshan Kriya is included on the Kriya page, duly noted.

However, this page should not only be called Kriya Yoga because the same term as (mentioned above) is also used in the Tibetan Buddhism. Perhaps, this one didn't make it clear enough 'Kriya Tantra' (bya ba rgyud, bya rgyud or bya ba'i rgyud) is a tantra and 'Kriya Yoga'(bya ba'i rnal 'byor) is a yoga - but some refer to each indiscriminantly. The references given were purely internet based so wikipedia editors may see quickly that the term used in the Tibetan tradition. Despite the references being internet based they are most definitely based on scriptural sources pre-dating the publication of 'Autobiography of a Yogi' by atleast 500 years or so. Others sources may be found. The revelations of Babaji and the Tibetan tradition need not be mentioned as in your opinion they are speculation - despite the references made in 'Autobiography of a Yogi' and (other books on Babaji) about His affilation with Tibetan monks, seen adorning Tibetan dress and using various Tibetan ritual articles, etc. Again, these need not be whole sections or long paragraphs, but mere mentions to delineate not a similarity in techniques or practices, but a simple mention that 'Kriya Yoga' can be found in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition and as far as it is known is not the same practice and technique as the Kriya as taught by Babaji. Remember that many Tibetan terms are translated from Sanskrit and both languages are highly symbolic. Again, this one is not professing to say they are the self-same technique/practice - don't misunderstand! But as an enycylopediac article it should mention all bona-fide references of the self-same term!!! Not confine it and exclude references entirely and purely on the grounds that you mention. A person who comes across the term in Tibetan sources in a book or article or mentioned by a Tibetan monk, perhaps, may then mistake it for the same practice/technique as the Kriya yoga of Mahavatar Babaji - see? Not sure what I need good look for, but thank you for your best wishes! Svaha! 213.106.1.25 08:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]

Hi Shaninath, the reason the Wikipedia article about the Kriya Yoga of Mahavatar Babaji-->Lahiri Mahasaya is called 'Kriya Yoga' is because that is the widely accepted usage of that term. If you do a Google search on "Kriya Yoga", between 95 and 100% of the results show websites relating to that very specific "Kriya Yoga" - not to some Tibetan 'kriya yoga'. The way that Wikipedia resolves other, less common, usages of a term is with 'disambiguation'. For more information on this, see Disambiguation.

Thus, the Kriya Yoga article has a tag at the top of the page that results in the phrase: "This article is about the Kriya Yoga taught by the Mahavatar Babaji --> Lahiri Mahasaya lineage. For other Kriya practices, see Kriya." That way, the tiny minority of people looking for some tibetan (or other) version of kriya yoga will see that note and go to the Kriya page. There, they will see a short description of the word 'Kriya' followed by links to all the various other uses of the word 'kriya', INCLUDING a link to a minor reference to Tibetan kriya yoga in a larger Wikipedia article about Tibetan Buddhist texts.

I agree, the Tibetan 'kriya yoga' is different from Mahavatar Babaji's Kriya Yoga. It sounds to me like they are using the words 'kriya' and 'karma' interchangably, as some people do, and are really referring to some sort of more outward 'karma yoga' ('kriya' and 'karma' both are based in sanskrit on the root 'action'). This is where translation of ancient texts gets tricky. So in this case, one would look at the description of their 'kriya yoga', and it sounds like an entirely different practice. 'Kriya' is a term used in many ways, after all. I also agree that just in case someone ever looks on Wikipedia for the Tibetan 'kriya yoga', there should be a disambiguation notice at the top of the Kriya Yoga and Kriya pages, which I inserted. Again, that's how Wikipedia resolves these things, not by adding to the article itself. But the Tibetan version has so little usage on Wikipedia (it doesn't even have it's own article, but just a tiny reference in a large article) and on the internet (it's very hard to find, unless you are looking very hard for it), that it seems unlikely to me that people will be looking for it here. But just in case, that problem is now solved. Thank you for bringing it up. And Best of Wishes to you - I didn't mean the previous 'good luck' to imply 'you really need it', but just to say may your path to God be clear and true. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath 14:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Priyanath! Yes, I agree Kriya Yoga is most definitely inextricably linked in the public psyche to Kriya Masters Mahavatar Babaji and all lineages that spring forth from Him. But this will reduce any ambiguity that may arise - most probably in the mind of a novice student of Tibetan Buddhism. Yes, it may be an entirely different practice, but Kriya Yoga does lay emphasis on outward cleanliness to some degree. What often happens within a textual tradition is that texts and schools of thought arise that refute the validity and importance of other schools and texts/practices. It may actually be a revolt by some Buddhist schools within Mahayana against what became elitist dogmatic practice (and hence devoid of the original spirit) shrouded in secrecy by some priests. The 'inner'/'higher' tantras are actually quite intense and could be indeed termed blasphemous to many. Here is where some of the 'Higher' tantras seem to have many a similiarity with Aghora, Kapila, Kaula and other 'Hindu' tantric traditions as there is the emergence of the Mahasiddha tradition/schools/texts. Here is a great article that talks about these developments http://www.vajranatha.com/teaching/MahasiddhaTradition.htm Once again thank you for your best wishes. May you find that what thou seeketh! Tat Tvam Asi! 213.106.1.25 19:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]

Possible Inclusion of Another Lineage[edit]

This one has been informed that a link to Swami Satyeswarananda Giri could not stay on the Kriya page (to avoid disambiguity) because His guru was Swami Satyananda Giri and thus would be in Lahiri Mahasaya's lineage. So this one would like the addition of Swami Satyeswarananda Giri under those 'That source their lineage to Lahiri Mahasaya'. However, Swami Satyeswarananda Giri is also a direct disciple of Mahavatar Babaji and has written about these encounters in His published works relating to Kriya Yoga. So not sure where that would fit in exactly in this article. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri should also be included in the Kriya Yoga Teacher section. He has no organisation as far as this one is aware, but is a bona-fide Kriya Teacher/Master verified by tradition and lineage. It are through His published works that many actually know about Lahiri Mahasaya's lineage and its development.213.106.1.25 11:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Shaninath[reply]