This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Uttarakhand / History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in May 2012. Hinduism: Philosophy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as High-importance). Religion: New religious movements High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Yoga Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

As far as I know, Haidakhan Babaji himself never once claimed to be Mahavatar Babaji who initiated Lahiri Mahasaya into Kriya Yoga in 1861. They were many people at that time who loved to believe the Haidakhan Babaji is the same person as Mahavatar Babaji. But Marshall Govindan puts an end to this error in belief in his website. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my understanding as well, which is why the article says that "It has been asserted by some," which is true but needs to be cited. Leonard Orr would be a good source. As for Marshall Govindan's website, I think WP policy is that a book reference would be needed to include that info. Has his expose been published in a citable source? Please go ahead and improve the article. I simply started it so that the various Babaji's could be distinguished from one another. It's still a stub. —Hanuman Das 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is imperative for this article to have a photo or a picture of the subject. The reason is obvious; Readers then could judge for themselves whether the drawing of Mahavatar Babaji and Haidakhan Babaji represent the same person. Any comments? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three distinct articles about three distinct Babajis. Please do not continue the dubious practice of intentionally attempting to confuse them. The articles and their subjects are as follows:

• Mahavatar Babaji - as written about by Yogananda
• Hariakhan Baba - who lived and taught berween 1861 and 1924
• Haidakhan Babaji - who taught between 1970 and 1984; died in 1984

Thank you - these are biographies, not mythologies. Start your own article on Babaji mythology if you like. -Hanuman Das 21:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious practice is performed here only by you, my dear Hanuman Das. You claim these 3 articles are biographies and yet you completely disregard even the slightest thought of looking into biography of Haidakhan Babaji (the one you speculate that died in 1984). There are several really good books (about experiences with Him, not mere beliefs) out there on the subject, which you don't seem to acknowledge. Why is that?

Please, do not misunderstand me, I respect your effort here, but it is obvious that you are not being objective (and, to me, you act like you own this place - which you don't). Why not present all relevant info on Mahavatar Babaji by not preferring only one idea about him? Hmm.

Why not present info of those people that have actually been blessed by Mahavatar Babaji, directly, in person? Is speculation, based on certain books, really sincere effort to present Mahavatar Babaji and His teachings? Is this the best service we can offer to Mahavatar Babaji and people at large? Hmm.

And, while we are on the subject, have you even met Mahavatar Babaji, Haidakhan Babaji or Hairakhan Babaji in person? -Nitya72 10:33, 7 June 2006 (GTM+2)

Added:
It is more clear to me now how things work here at Wikipadia. You "own" your article, so I guess I am sorry I have csused any troubles to you.

Good bye and Namaste, Hanuman das.

Nitya72,

You are more than welcome to add encyclopedic information to articles. But first please read the WP policies on verifiabity, neutral point of view, and no original research. The first says the you must cite your sources so that others can verify them - this means including page numbers. The second says that you may not attempt to promote a particular point of view or attempt to bias readers toward that point of view. The third means that you cannot "connect the dot" or derive theories of your own based on published facts. You can only present the facts.

I personally believe that with respect to the three Babaji articles, that this is best achieved by assuming that they are three individuals and making them strict biographies. If you wish to write an additional article about the mythological immortal Babaji supported by book sources, by all means do so and then link to it from the "See also" section of each article.

The most important thing to remember is that this is an Encyclopedia, western-style. It is not a place to report you personal experiences...

Also, you will note that the theories about various Babaji's being Mahavatar Babaji have been duly noted and cited in that article... and also in the individual articles. If you wish to add references or a list of specific people who hold such beliefs, that is fine, but extensive additions intended to convince people that the three individuals were the same is out of place in an encyclopedia biography.

My personal observation is that there are numerous examples in Indian and Buddhist history where people have been intentionally sloppy with facts in order to "prove" that some individual is immortal, when actually there were several distinct individuals that happened to have the same name (probably named in honor of the first individual) over a span of several centuries. Detailed historic reseach does usually manage to prove that they were indeed seperate individuals. One example is the Buddhist writer Nagarjuna, whose career traditionally spans a number of centuries, but who turns out to have been several distinct individuals with distinct writing styles and specializations....

Namaste

Hanuman Das 14:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hanuman Das,

thank you for your reply. Please, forgive me again for wasting your time.

I wish you God speed

namaste

Nitya72

This page if anything, needs a section that reports any criticism Babaji faced by other Hindu mystics. Was he deemed a fraud? Who believed him and why? Who didn't and why?

That would help add to the objectivity of this article immensely. Orthodoxyordeath (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, Orthodoxyordeath, but I am personally not aware of these critical opinions. With the exception, perhaps, that Yogananda's Self-Realization Fellowship does not accept Haidakhan Babaji as manifestation of Mahavatar Babaji, which is already mentioned in the article. Was your "critical method" applied to the Saints of the Holy Mountain? If so, I would appreciate if you could point out a specific article. I would like to see how it is done, and perhaps apply it to this article as well.

Kind regards, Prajski (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• IMG-20181118-WA0279.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]