Jump to content

Talk:Natha Sampradaya

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Nath)

Guru Siddha Nath

[edit]

Guru Siddha Nath belonged to the original Nath Sampradaya of Lord Dattatreya. The complete lineage of Gurus as well as their teachings can be found here: http://nathyogi.com/lineage-of-gurus.php

Guru Siddha Nath's disciple Nath Yogi can be contacted here: http://nathyogi.com/contact.php

Nath Yogi can also be contacted on Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Nath-Yogi. He writes answers related to spirituality, God and Guru-disciple tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:C188:823C:B842:72BF:48AD:255E (talk) 06:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More information about Guru Siddha Nath can be found here: http://www.gurusfeet.com/guru/guru-siddha-nath — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:C188:823C:B842:72BF:48AD:255E (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

[edit]

Assumptions about this article

[edit]

This is a general article about the Naths and the Nath Sampradaya. Details which are specific to one panth or one teacher should go into a separate article about that panth or teacher. Historical facts and beliefs and practices which are common to all panths and teachers are what belongs in this article. If you disagree, please discuss here. —Adityanath 15:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements for listing a Nath guru on this page

[edit]

Clearly, we cannot list every Nath in existance. We can only list Nath Gurus. And to be sure that they are Gurus, we need to have the name of their initiator, their panth or sub-sect, and some reason to believe their received parampara or succession. Self-proclaimed "Naths" need to provide some reason that they should be considered Nath Gurus. —Hanuman Das 02:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable citations required

[edit]

Other anon. editors should be aware that all information added must be verifiable by a citation to a book, journal, or reliable website. Thanks for any properly cited additions to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.41.150.146 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This article contains serious problems

[edit]

It has been extensively edited by the devotees of a fake nath Guru - an Englishman by the name of Miles - who went to India in the 1950s and re-invented himself as a Hindu spiritual teacher. There is no evidence that he was ever initiated into any branch of the Nath Sampradaya, and this page is largely under the control of a small group of westerners who have very little or no contact with the Indian forms of the tradition. They have a good deal of academic understanding of certain of the historical realities of the tradition, but they regularly edit the page to fool people into thinking that their non-initiated non-nath lineage is equivalent to the Indian forms.

At least one or two of the the people involved in the edit wars on this article as wikipedia admins are members of that sect, the "Interntional Nath Order."

I have removed the offending and highly controversial and unsubstantiated material - for example, a "guru" of the lineage being identified as such only by references to the works of his followers, or even his own works, leaving the article significantly more informative and objective. I believe that if you check the people who actually come along and re-insert the Mahendranath fake-nath materials into this article, you will discover several of them are INO members, who are attempting to propagate the cult of their particular un-official psuedo-nath fan club.

At the very least, these claims made are not verifiable because they cite self-published and self-referential sources. There is no objective evidence made for the status of the Mahendranath group as naths, other than references to the writing and claims of Mahendranath himself. Compare Da Free John's claims.

It's important that the conflict of interest issues in this edit war are noted, and a reference to the history of the page will indicate the severity of the administrative abuses that have been required to maintain this page in its uninformative, misleading and broken condition.

Please inspect the page history to understand the issues further. --83.82.115.34 (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be an accurate assessment of the article and shows a misunderstanding of what verifiability means in the Wikipedia context. I note with humor the assertion that "wikipedia admins are members of that sect". And the Illuminati too, I am sure :) Sivanath (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on the removal of the Mahendranath material

[edit]

Note that, in accordance with the policy that "gurus" on these pages should be listed on the basis of their own claims or those of their followers. Clearly this contravenes several Wikipedia policies. As for the issue of Wikipedia admins being members of the International Nath Order sect - NAME DELETED FOR PRIVACY REASONS is a wikipedia admin and has clearly had quite some interest in the status of this page over the years.

Finally, as I noted before, Lobsang Rampa should be listed as a Tibetan Lama if our standard for placing an individual in a spiritual lineage's web page is their own writings.

Think it through. I think we can all clearly see that Mahendranath's inclusion on this page is inappropriate, given that there is no reference to his status as a Nath, never mind a nath Guru with a Parampara, other than his own writings.

We need to be consistent here, not allow one sect to insist that their guru be included when there is simply no reference to his status as a Guru, or as a Nath, other than his own writings and those of his followers.

I would note that this argument was deleted from the previous version of this talk page. I will continue to re-insert it as long as is necessary until it is answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.82.115.34 (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

I've currently fully protected this page for three days, due to recent edit warring. Some users have called some changes vandalism; I don't know if I can go that far, but it's clearly disruptive, hence the page protection. I notice that 83.82.115.34 (talk · contribs) in particular is sinking in quite a few reverts and seems to hold a controversial position. Let's talk things over, hm? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is vandalism. Instead of disscussing the issues on this page, 83.82.115.34 (talk · contribs) just went and consistently deleated the parts the he/she disagreed with. By Wikipedia's standards, this is vandalism.Mjr162006 (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Baba Balak Nath, and Nandinatha Sampradaya

[edit]

Why is the Nandinath Sampradaya listed as a subsect of the Nath Sampradaya, and Baba Balak Nathji listed as a Nath Guru? From what I've read the Nandinatha Sampradaya is a subsect of the Saiva Siddhanta sect, and doesn't have any connections with the Nath Sampradaya founded by Gorakshanath and Matysendranath. Likewise, legends surrounding Baba Balak Nathji seem to indicate he was a rival of Guru Gorakshanath, and definitely not a follower of his sect. 216.36.162.26 (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC) BolenathBhakta[reply]

Shree Ratna Nath Math

[edit]

Shree Ratna Nath Math In Dang, Nepal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.195.42.21 (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nath vs Natha

[edit]

Is this a matter of Hindi/Prakrit vs Sanskrit? The article uses them interchangeably with no explanation, but one is called for.Sylvain1972 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nath vs Anath

[edit]

No offenses. I've been to Half India, traveled with Naths (those with holes in their Ears) and their Chelas (followers).

Some of them were Peer (head of the Nath Temple, The Boss). I have stayed in their Temples, river side mashan ghat (dead body Burning place), Samadhi, kooti (hut), Desert, jungle etc.

It's been decades, my family member worships them. And I've questions.

What I can't understand is:

  1. Saapera (Snake Charmer) looks similiar. Is Saapera a branch/sect/cult of Nath (?Sampradaya)?
  2. Most of Naths drinks, eats fish and meat, I've never seen their Sexual Acts but other Sadhus has told me that they do Sodomy with others using some kitchen "Daal" items, I've seen some temple worshiping (knee bending, thumb pressing, kissing their malas item things). I've many pictures and Videos of them. Now, what I can't understand is, Nath guys are Tantrik? Aghor/Aghori? If they practice Sex/ritual sex - I want to know facts/details. [I've few books about Tantra/Tantrism and I'm still reading them. I've not asked them, hoping that they will get insulted.]
  3. Do they Hypnotize? I heard but till today's date I've no facts. Rumor is that they use some herbs, Hash, opium, marijuana and other Hypnotic Drugs to Hypnotize/Trance "Gora Shadhu (White Foreigners)", rich man's wife, and others. (I've seen some "Gora man and Woman full in Trance - Living in India, forgetting everything. Picture and Video I have"
  4. Allmost all Nath smokes weeds, hash and licks opium. (To prove this I've pictures and Video of 12 years unique Nath Mela etc from different places.) I've never seen them Practice Yoga or Worshiping, teaching or preaching. If they own/run Temple, some priest guy comes hourly/daily to do Arati and Pooja (worshiping). Do they worship like other Brahman/Priests?
  5. When I questioned about them about Alcohol misuse [God! They go crazy after those Drinks. They even fight.] They advocated me about Banaras/Varanasi Temple and Alcohol must Drink rituals. Is it true that in Delhi (near New Delhi) there is a temple of Goddess Kaali where people gives alcohol to priests. And priests have to Drink that Alcohol. Is it true?
  6. Some humored. The Guy who runs Temple is Nath. And the Guy who has no Temple and Follower is Anath. Is it true?
  7. Nath guys Politically active? Son of Rajiv Gandhi and other parties financing them? Rumor?

The things written here in Wikipedia is good. But, like a Show Room. Where can I get factual information?

No offenses please. I just want to know the truth. I'm not religious but I truly respect them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.216.192 (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny. Perhaps you should be contributing to the uncyclopedia version of this entry ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.12.4 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources template

[edit]

A quick look through the sources indicates that this article needs a very serious scrubbing. Random, self-published websites, many of which seem to be first-person accounts of one person's spiritual journey, definitely do not meet WP:RS. I was about to remove one of them, but when I saw just how many questionable sources there are, I stopped. I'd have to go through and check each one, but it looks like easily half or more of these are not reliable sources; that implies that they need to be removed, and the information the supposedly verify should probably also be removed. The task is too large for me to start now, but I may come back to this at some point. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, however, start to remove some of the unsourced claims, particularly the non-neutral ones. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello Friends, I want to add an external link of a living Nath, Swami Saurabhnath, into this article, that link is https://www.feelnonduality.com If anyone has any objection please message me on my talk page or mention your objection here. Thank you. Makaranda Deshpande —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be WP:UNDUE and WP:SPAM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Related your comment on my inclusion of a linkHi Joshua,
Why do you think the link I want to add is a spam, the person I mentioned in my link Swami Saurabhnath has nothing to do with spamming. What kind of proofs should I give you to prove my point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makarandadeshpande (talk • contribs) 11:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC) End of copied part[reply]
It may be relevant if you can add info on Swami Madhavnath, Swami Saurabhnath guru's guru; Google gives 1,180 hits on him, so he may have some relevance. Otherwise, it looks like using Wikipedia for advertising Swami Saurabhnath. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your welcome message and information about using wikipedia, your suggestion is really nice that I should add info on Swami Madhavnath, but Nath tradition is about living masters, Masters who have left their bodies are adored but living masters are the people who can help to speed up the spiritual growth more than the dead masters. Though in my opinion google hits cannot be the criteria for understanding the relevance of a spiritual person since these type of people usually stay away from society but have you seen how many hits google gives to Swami Saurabhnath? he himself on his own without any help from any organisation or religious leader tries to do his work without asking for anything in return, hope you understand what I am saying, advertisement is not an issue for any spiritual person because such a person likes to live in solitude. I thought Swami Saurabhnath's information is useful for this article so I am trying to put that here, but if you people don't like then I will not put his info here, but I will request don't apply your criteria of popularity which you apply to other topics of wikipedia on this topic of spirituality because if you want wikipedia to be relevant to the reality and not just follower of google then look at reality directly otherwise by the time a spiritual person becomes popular in your terms he or she has already left the world then it becomes useless to talk about that person. Thank you :-) Makarandadeshpande (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Makarandadeshpande: "Swami Saurabhnath" gives only 68 hits; that means that he's hardly relevant for Wikipedia. Other criteria may apply outside Wikipedia, but this here is Wikipedia, so Wiki-criteria apply here. See also WP:ALSO. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: I presume that by word "hit" you mean total number of results that google gives after entering any search term, I have tried with google chrome and mozila firefox, in both browsers google showed more than 600 results for Swami Saurabhnath, even in your local search engine (google.nl) it showed 695 results for Swami Saurabhnath. So just to make things clear and understand rightly I am asking you this question that have I understood the word "hit" correctly and minimum how many hits are necessary to get mentioned on Wikipedia? Thanks for your time and efforts you make to keep Wikipedia relevant :-) by the way the link you mentioned in see also is not working, can you give me the exact link? Makarandadeshpande (talk) 04:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

typo, sorry. Regarding Google: the browser is not relevant for the number of hits. But the country may be, since Google adapts their results, depending on the user. My point is: there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of swamis and gurus who claim to be Naths; so, what makes this one especially relevant? Well, if Swami Madhavnath has some relevance, than that makes Swami Saurabhnath also somewhat more relevant. On the other hand, Google Books gives zero hits on Swami Saurabhnath, so that brings us back to WP:LINKSPAM. Did you read that page? I think you will understand. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First I want to disclose that I know Swami Saurabhnath personally, I hope this does not disqualify me from inserting his link here on wikipedia, because if I want to say something about someone then I must know him in the beginning, I cannot say anything about the person whom I do not know. Yes I understand your concerns about this world class forum and keeping it free from useless stuff. I have read that page also. As I told you before, Swami Saurabhnath works independently so his books are not published by any reputed publisher until now, basic reason behind this is publishers have commercial interests in their publishing and no one is ready to bait on an author who is not well-known. But this does not mean he has not written any books, he has four English spiritual books and one Marathi (his mother tongue) spiritual book in poetic form which is in my opinion after many years become possible because no one else in my area has written that type of book for many years, possibly centuries. His all books are available to download free on internet on major sites such as Barnes & Noble, Apple I-Books, Nook, Amazon etc. (On Amazon those books are not free because Amazon does not allow free books so there is a little charge). I talked with him about the google books, he told me that he was not able to publish on google because Google Play Books is not accepting new authors currently. If you search on Google Books then you will not find any book, you might find a link to smashwords website which is an independent distributor but you will not find links to B&N, I-books and Amazon on Google Books, because they are rivals. But on Google search you will find his books easily to download.
Now your second point, you said there are hundreds of swamis and Gurus who claim to belong to Nath tradition. Yes it is possible and one cannot say that all of them are lying, it is possible that many of them really belong to Nath tradition because as time passes more and more people will keep coming into this tradition. What is so special about Swami Saurabhnath? The special thing is he does not claim to be a Guru nor he does any show off, the title Swami is misunderstood because of the misuse of many people, Swami means a person who is having spiritual interest. I don't want to talk about other Swamis because I don't know them but as far as Swami Saurabhnath is concerned his ordinariness is his specialty. If you come across him on the road and you don't know him then you will not even notice that he belongs to Nath or some other spiritual tradition, he lives with such ordinary way. He is not involved into any organization, any cult in particular or any type of politics. He works in purely spiritual manner with complete devotion, he is available to interact directly without any middle man. If you want you can contact him directly on the email id mentioned on his website, his complete postal address is also available there. I think he is the real Nath as Nath tradition expects one to be. I understand that this criteria is applicable outside wikipedia but when you ask what is so special about Swami Saurabhnath then I have to tell criteria which is outside wikipedia.
I think I have responded reasonably to all your objections on inserting the link, if you still have doubts about the credibility of Swami Saurabhnath, then contact him directly if you have spiritual understanding and judge him yourself. I hope you will not object anymore on inserting link, if you still have objections then I am ready to wait, because neither me nor Swami Saurabhnath has any hurry to get a link on wikipedia, we want love from readers, not their objections and doubts. Makarandadeshpande (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Before entering the link of Swami Saurabhnath, I had clearly stated the reasons here, why do you think it is a LINKSPAM, have you read this discussion before removing the link? Makarandadeshpande (talk) 02:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: What do you want to suggest? Makarandadeshpande (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That you read WP:COI, and stop this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I stop Makarandadeshpande (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natha_Sampradaya&oldid=1228432279"