famous |

Kaulantak Peeth on Wikipedia

Wikipedia is one of the information sites to search for the so-called unbiased and authentic information. When the reader base of an information website is estimated at 495 million views per month, one can imagine the number of people who trust wikipedia in shaping their perspectives on truth about different people, organizations, concepts, ideas. It is the not-for-profit organization which says that it ‘helps create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge’.

Mahayogi Bhairav Brahma Nath | 28/10/2021 |

Wikipedia is considered by many to be one of the best information sites to search for unbiased and authentic information. People look up to Wikipedia for their dose of truth.  When the reader base of an information website is estimated to be around 495 million views per month, one can imagine the number of people who trust Wikipedia in shaping their perspectives on the truth about different people, organizations, concepts, ideas, etc. It is a not-for-profit organization that says that it ‘helps create a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. But is it easier said than done? Wikipedia is also not immune to controversy and criticisms.

How Authentic Is Wikipedia?
According to Wikipedia, any individual can contribute to the information on Wikipedia, edited by the body of volunteers. It has an internal policy according to which ‘the articles must not be biased, must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible, without editorial bias, and points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic.’

‘But there has been heavy criticism on Wikipedia that challenges the authenticity of its content, its community of established users, and its processes. Educated critics from all around the world have questioned its factual reliability, the readability, and organization of the articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along with gender, racial, political, and national lines. In addition, conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been under the spotlight.’ For instance, Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia himself said to Lockdown TV that ‘Wikipedia cannot be trusted and is now “propaganda” for left-leaning establishment.’

Another criticism against Wikipedia is made by Oliver Kamm in “The Times” on August 16, 2007 edition where he alleges that “Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus ….. and the result is often dominated by the loudest and persistent voice.” He alleges that Wikipedia’s content is based on consensus or in simple terms, it’s the consensus that determines the content and not the truth.

 If consensus is the determining factor for the content, no wonder few people can team up and hijack the truth. It can create a monopoly and that in turn can shape a biased perspective and can brutally murder truth.

The well-known scientist and philosopher Aristotle said that some grain of truth is likely to be found even in commonly held ideas. He relied on both the expert opinion and the commonly held ideas to come closer to the truth. Here we have brought to light both- the expert critics’ careful observation of Wikipedia’s factual reliability and the common observation of hundreds of people, apart from the thorough study and observation of the experts of Kaulantak Peeth consisting of International lawyers, experts from worldwide organizations that excel and are the sole authority on the matters of the ancient knowledge passed on by the great Mahasiddhas. These organizations run strictly under the oldest surviving tradition of Himalayan Siddhas.

Kaulantak Peeth Ideology Vs Wikipedia
A True Tale of Biasedness & Hate towards Spiritual Organization

There is an interesting incident that the reader must be aware of before knowing the difference between the ideologies of the Kaulantak Peeth and Wikipedia. It is more or less the “consensus over truth” criticism against Wikipedia that is directed against Kaulantak Peeth. Back in 2008, Bhairav Brahma Nath, the ancient Peeth that prides itself on maintaining the unbroken lineage tradition of the Siddhas of Himalayas that the seekers all around the world must know about submitted the write-up to the team of Wikipedia, to create the Wikipedia page of Kaulantak Peeth. Bhairav Brahma Nath furnished Wikipedia’s team with evidence of how big Kaulantak Peeth is and how it is the forefront and ancient spiritual organization. Evidence submitted were:

1. Cuttings from the different national newspaper

2. Press Release

3. The clips of programs of Head of Kaulantak Peeth, of His Holiness, Kaulantak Nath, Mahasiddha Ishaputra on major national news channels like Aaj Tak, India TV, News 24, Doordarshan, etc.

But the editors of Wikipedia, after reviewing it, refused to publish the Wikipedia page. Bhairav Brahma Nath thought there might have been something that they missed from Peeth’s side. The Kaulantak Peeth’s team thought that their evidence were not enough for Wikipedia’s editors to prove that Kaulantak Peeth is one of the ancient peeth, the seat of knowledge of the Himalayan Siddhas. Bhairav Brahma Ji again submitted the write-up for Kaulantak Peeth’s Wikipedia page with more pieces of evidence. It was rejected again by the editors of Wikipedia. The rejections continued a few more times and they refused to create a page of Kaulantak Peeth.

Bhairav Brahma Nath decided to pursue and research how Wikipedia works. After thorough research, it deemed to the team that Wikipedia editors were more or less over-interested in publishing about any organization, particularly a spiritual organization, if they have some negative controversies attached to them. Since they could not find anything negative or dirt about Kaulantak Peeth, Wikipedia’s editors lost their interest in publishing Kaulantak Peeth’s page.

I encourage the readers to check Wikipedia and search anything related to Kaulantak Peeth. The readers will be surprised in finding no mentions of it albeit Kaulantak Peeth Himalaya being one of the highly searched topics on Wikipedia.  It is highly likely that in the future If any controversy were to happen, or if any person/ organization or anyone in that matter falsely accuses Kaulantak Peeth, the Wikipedia page of the Kaulanak Peeth would be published within a matter of a few hours without even “presumption of innocence until proven guilty.” If something negative is said about Kaulantak Peeth Himalaya, the editors of Wikipedia shall surely publish the page of Kaulantak Peeth with the mention of all kinds of negative things about the ancient Peeth.

I prod the readers to decide as to who is interested in spreading negativity, hopelessness around the world? The team at Kaulantak Peeth reviewed the pages of many other spiritual leaders of Sanatana Dharma. The team could infer that the editors of Wikipedia are heavily biased and have an ideology wherein, they shun the true essence of spirituality and harbor a certain hatred for the Sanatana Dharm. They underline the controversies in spiritual organizations. They cite the sources which are again biased and lean towards hatred for religious and spiritual organizations. It is also no surprise that most sources of Wikipedia are left-leaning media, Hindu critics’ media, and groups of people supporting similar ideologies.

So I would like to ask the reader, how can a truly intellectual organization or an entity whose very existence is based on spreading the truth and true hope for humanity, trust ‘Wikipedia and its team’?

According to Kaulantak Peeth, Wikipedia should not be like a person who hears things from different people and then add some subjective spice to it, and finally serve the plate-full of lies to innocent people. Wikipedia shouldn’t give a vibe to the readers of a backbiter. Wikipedia doesn’t have any research of its own. When a platform like Wikipedia does not have any control over the thoughts and ideas propagated on its platform, how can one trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information? Anyone can misguide and mislead people through Wikipedia and intellectual enslave people’s minds.

On the other hand, if a freshman media personnel, the one who has just started working in the media field, but is from the left media, has the privilege of opening a page on Wikipedia. A new artist in Indian TV, who might have done a small role or cameo, would also have a Wikipedia page. Why then Kaulantak Peeth, such an ancient Peeth, that has so many records of important programs in Hindi and English language, broadcasted on the national medium, proof of many press- cuttings, doesn’t have one single page on the information site which is run by volunteers, wherein anyone can submit any kind of information and gets it published? What should the action of Wikipedia and its bias towards Kaulantak Peeth be called? Is there a name for such narrow bias where consensus overrides truth? We leave it to the readers to infer it.

Therefore, Bhairav Brahma Nath, before submitting their write-up again for Wikipedia’s review, researched how Wikipedia works. Looking at Wikipedia’s heavily biased approach and lies running amok on the public platform, Bhairav Brahma Nath itself stepped back from being present on such a platform. Kaulantak Peeth decided not to ever support Wikipedia because they spread negativity around. It doesn’t matter even if Wikipedia claims that they are not biased, that the information is presented from a neutral point of view on Wikipedia. Their actions certainly speak louder than their words.

Based on the facts and research of information analysts from all around the world and of the experts in the board of Kaulantak Peeth, the Peeth has concluded if whether Wikipedia has any ideology that leans toward the truth at all. According to hundreds of different sources, the ideological bias, especially on its English-language edition, has been and is a frequent subject of academic analysis and public criticism of the project Wikipedia.  Questions are raised around its content being biased due to the political, religious, and ideology of its volunteer editors.

Truth is more or less self-evident. Truth is neither left-leaning nor right-leaning. It is the right or the left that leans towards the truth. Right and left are subjective. Wikipedia should lean towards the truth and not disturb its equilibrium to lean towards left or right. When you have an information portal trusted by millions, the information portal also incurs the duty to state the truth. How good is it for an information portal to be overridden by a political bias in broad daylight? What kind of ethics does Wikipedia follow especially when consensus overrides truth in their platform?

Kaulantak Peeth’s ideology is the ideology that runs on truth as experienced by not one, not a few but thousands of Siddhas, the enlightened ‘Chetana’ that are well known and are popular across different cultures around the planet earth. The ideology of Kaulantak Peeth is based on the truth as experienced, using different techniques, but meeting at a single point, by thousands of Rishis and Siddhas. Rishis and Siddhas are the greatest scientists, philosophers, Ayurvedacharyas, Astronomists, Astrologists, Artists, Alchemists, etc. that this planet has ever witnessed. All of the Mahasiddhas are the ‘chetanas’ who have all attained the highest state of realization. There have been well-known atheists and theists in the list of thousands of Himalayan Siddhas on whose ideology Kaulantak Peeth has been running since time immemorial.

It is also clear from the comprehensive research, that the editors of Wikipedia have a similar ideological inclination towards a particular ideology. Because if it was not the case, if Wikipedia was unbiased, why would Kaulantak Peeth or any other researcher point out the bias of an information pedia site that is free, and is run by volunteers? When there are hundreds of other websites on the internet that give all kinds of information whether based on any research or not, why then so much problem with Wikipedia. The answer lies in the simple adage, ‘with power comes to the responsibility and if there is no responsibility then it is the power that corrupts. And Wikipedia has the power to falsely mold the opinion and perspectives of millions of minds, especially the young minds, to view the world with a distorted lens.

Over-rating Impartiality to Authenticate Distortion
The reader must understand that Wikipedia has proven that it is very much possible to run down on a certain ideology that doesn’t match with the ideologies of its chosen, internal editors. To put it simply in words of Wikipedia for itself is, “it is not a reliable source for citations because it can be edited by anyone, anytime. Any information it contains at a particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. The consensus approach of Wikipedia also raises eyebrows. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.’

India’s Pedia
Kaulantak Peeth prides itself to present the ancient knowledge of the Siddhas, as it is, without any dilutions, to the present generation and will continue to do so in the future. Because of Wikipedia’s biases, it is especially hard for an ancient spiritual establishment like Kaulantak Peeth to support Wikipedia as Wikipedia seems to look down upon the age-old culture, religious views of Sanatan Dharma, and the spiritual leaders who lead their lives on the ideology of Sanatana Dharm. Kaulantak Peeth supports Indian sources. And one such source that has recently come into the picture is Mayopedia.org.

 Mayopedia is a not-for-profit, information site, the ‘India’s Pedia’ that is an initiative of the Indian company Mayosana. Mayosana is a project initiated by youths of the country Bharat. In the presence of several information pedia sites on the internet today with their pros and cons, it dawned on to the youth that India needs an inherent, authentic knowledge source, a go-to place to know the truth about different things that matter in life.

 Although Mayopedia is also run by a set of young volunteers, the editors claim to strictly review the information frequently.

Further, if the reader wants to know authentic, first-hand information about Kaulantak Peeth, they must go to Siddhapedia for the truth.