Talk:Ramakrishna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions How you can help: Notice board - Discussion board
???	This article has not been rated yet on the quality scale.

Archives

1 2

Contents 1 Protest Kali's Child 2 Avatarvaad 3 Response new thread 4 New addtion 5 References 6 Small NPOV line 7 monograph by Swami Tyagananda

[edit] Protest Kali's Child

I strongly protest the inclusion of a defamatory and shoddy work that masquerades as scholarship. Of course, I'am refering to Kali's child. Sri Ramakrishna is the Thakur of the Hindus, and as such, the Hindus have the rights to define any content that will disseminate information about him. The only controversy about Sri Ramakrishna is in the heads of the outsiders from the American Academy. There are serious questions that have been raised about their scholarship as regards Hinduism. A minority of Nobodies have no right to define our(Hindu) religious Leaders. The place for all of kripal's work should be a tag under his name. Till such a time that there is not a satisfactory conclusion to the dispute w.r.t the Hindus, none of their (Kripal and co) works will be credible enough to be used to describe any Hindu experiences. Anything less will mean Wikipedia subscribes to their bias. I'm appalled at outsiders raising questions about the divinity of Sri Ramakrishna based on dubious "scholarship". Such pernicious and malicious attempts to cast aspersions on Sri Ramakrishna will not go unchallenged. Orientalism and Racism are well and alive, just read some of the comments here. NPOV is a nice excuse to disparage , humiliate and de-legitimize non-western experiences. A pre-cursor to genocide is the portrayal of a people and their experiences as sub-human. A billion Hindus and a rising India will never be coerced or browbeaten into submission by nefarious forces. Jai Hind! Jai Shri Ram!

Varahamihira 23:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

Kripal is a researcher and evidently does not have any ulterior motive to defame Ramakrishna. While he may have misinterpreted some of the connotations in M's text, his basic idea about homoerotic allusions in several of Ramakrishna's sayings -- is quite evident in the original text itself. It is also true that the English translation of Kathamrita(Gospel of Ramakrishna by Swami Nikhilananda) does omit these sections from the text, which points out to an obvious act of unwanted revision. Kathamrita is above all a historical document and to tamper with it, suggests an intention to hide things under the carpet. Ramakrishna may be Thakur to you, but for the Wikipedians -- he is a personality whom we all want to know about. Hence, all historical evidences must be provided before us -- so that we may judge rationally. To provide information about Kripal's book is not to defame Ramakrishna, but merely to provide relevant information/views about his multi-dimensional personality. This is not the space to effuse about the belief in untainted purity of an Avataric manifestation. --- Rangeet

First, It is a fallacy that being a "researcher " precludes one from bias. Most Humanities "research" is about politics. The source of funding for such work and the basic assumptions one starts with before building a hypothesis inevitably narrows down the kind of conclusions one reaches. While the effects of underlying assumptions may not make much of a difference in the "material sciences", they create a political minefield in the humanities. Couple this with the social impact that such "sciences" have, then one can only laugh about "evidently ... no ulterior motives".

Science is not about facts. Science is about approximate explanations. I can have multiple theories that equally explain a phenomenon satisfactorily. The theory that one picks for an explanation at any given time has a lot to do with convienience. Science is not about truth. it is about possibilities. Works beautifully for physical sciences, questionable at best in psychoanalyzing dead people. That Thakur lived is an absolute. That he was a Homosexual is a propostion that can only have two values: true or false. Even forgetting Kirpal's dismal attempts at translation, or his much questioned use of psychoanlaysis as a tool in formulating a hypothesis, the fact that it is still a possibility does not provide for any absolute conclusion. The onus is on kirpal to prove beyond the possibility of doubt the theory he proposes.

Secondly, misinterpreting "some connotations" merely points to a deeper flaw in the tools used by the scholar ( not that I think kirpal qualifies for one ). For anybody that seeks to translate a work, the basic criterion is that he have a good, if not excellent, command over the language. That Kirpal misinterprets "some" is not in question here. That he even misinterprets in the first place creates a big question mark over any claims of domain expertise he makes. A cursory glance at the mistakes he makes leave no doubt that the man has not even a minimum command over bengali. Further, there is scope here for pyschoanalyzing Kirpal himself to better understand the assumptions he makes before he forms the theory.

Add to this the use of psychoanalysis on a dead person, something that Psychoanalysis prohibits, and his refusal to engage in debate from academics that specialize in it. one can only conclude that kirpal's pretensions of scholarship are at best dubious. Exactly why I feel that the wikipedia page should not cite his works till the dispute is resolved.

lastly, If the monks of the Thakur's order had any intentions of censorship, they would have done so at the very first publication of the kathaamrita itself. It is infantile to contend that the order deliberatley chose to make unwarranted revisions to hide his alleged homosexuality. There could be a million different reasons. Again, no absolutes. Kirpal's work deserves no mention here. Perhaps, it would be more fitting in an article about how not to go about building theories!!

All in all, the diss-the-brown- factory is in full bloom egged on by servile "natives"!! 24.172.197.45 21:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

I agree fundamentally, but I would put it in terms that are a little more complex. We don't know what Kripal's motives are. But I believe that a large part of this debate revolves around the different sexual mores and values of Hindus, Americans, and Ramakrishna. Kripal's claim is that Ramakrishna was heavily influenced by tantra. If true, and if it is true that there was an erotic element in Ramakrishna's yoga, then it is easy to see why some of his words and actions might have embarrassed and been been suppressed (even subconsciously) by more mainstream Hindus. It is also easy to see why the more cosmopolitan Kripal would want to "free" Ramakrishna from this suppression. And it is also easy to see why this would outrage contemporary followers of Ramakrishna and other Hindus. — goethean ॐ 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No probs with the revisions, Goethean. I dont think there is any serious debate about the fact that Ramakrishna was involved in Tantra-- His primary affiliations were to Kali, the Shakta Tantric Mother-goddess. The complications arise due to Ramakrishna's later initiation into Advaitism, His involvement in other religio-mystical sadhana and his explicit denunciation of the Left-handed path(which is, in any case, not the only but merely one of the Tantric paths). However, Tantra of ninteenth century Bengal is itself a highly complex phenomenon -- involving a revision of iconography, practices and philosophy. I think Vivekananda's way of looking at his Master has precluded other strategies... and its a bit like Pauline revision of the Nazarine. For example, see Lex Hixon's Preface to the Meetings with Ramakrishna. And, being a Bangali myself, I can avouch that Kripal didn't mistranslate where it mattered the most...atleast he didn't "literally" mistranslate.(And it is true that the Math tries to evade references to this aspect of Ramakrishna's personality, which is significant) However, what one makes out of those sayings depends upon her/his interpretation of Tantric hermeneutics itself. For me, Ramakrishna lived in a city which was brimming with post-Enlightenment thought-- but He was not Himself sufficiently influenced by it. Hence, the post-Enlightenment categories of dyadic sexual/erotic orientation does not help us to understand Him(not that I believe that there can be One monolithic "understanding").All things said, Kripal does not deserve the treatment that he has received --although such a reception tells us more about 20th century Indian(largely urban Bengali) culture that it enlightens us about Ramakrishna Himself. --- Rangeet

Added some other references to Ramakrishna's sexuality, the interpreters differ among each other about Ramakrishna's sexual/erotic orientation. This has been done not only to hint at the variety of opinion in the field (and scholarly study too) but also to bail out Kripal from being the solitary pharmakos. --- Rangeet

The References have been taken from the book, Kali's Child itself. It will be more relevant to mention it in the Jeffrey J. Kripal article, adding it here will make it superfluous, and unnecessary. I agree we can mention the Kali's Child, but there is no point in flooding the page with the same material. --vineeth 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is just that... the references are NOT pointing out to the Same Material. True, they have been talking about aspects of Ramakrishna's eroticism/sexuality, but they are strategising their points in different ways and coming to considerably different conclusions. For example, Kripal's thoughts about Ramakrishna places it into the greater Tantric hermeneutics,while Kakar thinks of it as an example of the idiosyncretic ambivalences in South Asian sexuality and how it defies conventional Freudian categories. Sumit Sarkar's approach to the text is neo-historicist, and it cannot be equated with the Isherwoodian views (some of which are intensely personal). Hence, am replacing the text that you have deleted... I am removing the Isherwood info as the allusion is indirect. And what about the Avatara Varishthaya? Why did you remove it? I stated a "belief", did not claim it to be true(or false)...... Rangeet

My apologies for removing "Avatara Varishthaya", that was a mistake, but i am still not convinced about adding other superfluous material. --vineeth 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the material to be superfluous... but I do feel that the balance of the article has been disturbed as other portions of the article are not sufficiently documented. Hence, the article seems to be stressing on a particular aspect of the "contemporary reception" of Ramakrishna. I think we need to develop on the M-theory bit, can you help? Also about the Avatarvaad-- the relevant theology, can you supply some info? What about developing Ramakrishna's belief in Tantra, his particular affiliations -- and situating it in a larger discourse (I feel that the Vedanta bit has often been overtly stressed, and that too only that of the pop-fizz variety)Also, what about identifying the Ramakrishna's particular affiliations with the Islam and Christianity ,a bit more?.... Rangeet

The Kali's Child is a collection of all these references. These references are more suitable to the Kali's Child article and not here. I am moving them to the relevant article here. Mentioning Kali's Child is ok, because here i am a wikipedian first and then his devotee. I accept that POV should be maintained but you cannot flood the article with details referenced and explained in Kali's Child. They are more suited to the main article. Thanks. --vineeth 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No probs Vineeth, I agree to your point now. Thank You. .... Rangeet

[edit] Avatarvaad

Added the single line about the belief in Ramakrishna's Avataric identity. Can someone develop on that.. I mean about the Theological aspect of it, as is relevant to Ramakrishna and the Ramakrishnite Movement? --- Rangeet

[edit] Response new thread

First, It is a fallacy that being a "researcher " precludes one from bias. Most Humanities "research" is about politics. The source of funding for such work and the basic assumptions one starts with before building a hypothesis inevitably narrows down the kind of conclusions one reaches. While the effects of underlying assumptions may not make much of a difference in the "material sciences", they create a political minefield in the humanities. Couple this with the social impact that such "sciences" have, then one can only laugh about "evidently ... no ulterior motives".

Science is not about facts. Science is about approximate explanations. I can have multiple theories that equally explain a phenomenon satisfactorily. The theory that one picks for an explanation at any given time has a lot to do with convienience. Science is not about truth. it is about possibilities. Works beautifully for physical sciences, questionable at best in psychoanalyzing dead people. That Thakur lived is an absolute. That he was a Homosexual is a propostion that can only have two values: true or false. Even forgetting Kirpal's dismal attempts at translation, or his much questioned use of psychoanlaysis as a tool in formulating the hypothesis, the fact that it is still a possibility does not provide for any absolute conclusion. The onus is on kirpal to prove beyond the possibility of doubt the theory he proposes.

Secondly, misinterpreting "some connotations" merely points to a deeper flaw in the tools used by the scholar ( not that I think kirpal qualifies for one ). For anyone that seeks to translate a work, the basic criterion is that he have a good, if not excellent, command over the language he/she seeks to translate from. That Kirpal misinterprets "some" is not in question here. That he even misinterprets in the first place poses a big question mark over any claims of domain expertise he makes. A cursory glance at the mistakes he makes leave no doubt that the man has not even a minimum command of bengali. Further, there is scope here for pyschoanalyzing Kirpal himself to better understand the assumptions he makes before he forms the theory.

Add to this the use of psychoanalysis on a dead person, something that Psychoanalysis prohibits, and his refusal to engage in debate from academics that specialize in it. one can only conclude that kirpal's pretensions of scholarship are at best dubious. Exactly why I feel that the wikipedia page should not cite his works till the dispute is resolved.

lastly, If the monks of the Thakur's order had any intentions of censorship, they would have done so at the very first publication of the kathaamrita itself. It is infantile to contend that the order deliberatley chose to make unwarranted revisions to hide his alleged homosexuality. There could be a million different reasons. Again, no absolutes. Kirpal's work deserves no mention here. Perhaps, it would be more fitting in an article about how not to go about building theories!!

All in all, the diss-the-brown-folks factory is in full bloom, egged on by servile "natives"!!

Varahamihira 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

Hehhe... well Gadadhar chattopadhyay lived for sure, but whether he is/was Thakur or not is purely a matter of faith... I am not suggesting that faith is devoid of science or vice versa... but merely that talking about things from the perspective of a Math-defined faithful is to leave aside the "unfaithful" ... not to mention people like me who are faithful but deemed to be "heterodox". Hence I have added the Avatara Varishtaya line in the intro section, and I would happily contribute to aspects of theology of Avatarvaad as relevant to Ramakrishna. But for all that, I would not leave Kripal out. We are not here to censor facts, but to present them .. in all their diversity and divergences. I do believe that Ramakrishna was/is an Avatar, but I dont think this is/was a fact... but rather a matter of belief that lies beyond the realms of a Wikipedia article.(Note... Avatarvaad doesnt lie beyond the realms of the article, but merely the unequivocal statement claiming Ramakrishna as an Avatar.. or adding words like "Thakur" to his name) What we are concerned in here is to gain knowledge about the "man" Ramakrishna(that doesnt leave aside the Avatara Varishthaya strain) and to broaden our perspectives about knowing him. True, all knowledge systems/ methodologies serve as political constructs, meant for categorisation and control. This is true not merely for so-called "Western" forms of knowledge but also for South Asian hermeneutical traditions. There is no reason to think that a Navya Nyaya tarka-vagish is not using the Foucauldian gaze while the Orientalist is doing so. That would be an attempt to essentialise the Saidian "Western thought"... When I suggested that Kripal is a researcher I merely wanted to point out that he shares a minimum bit of responsibility for what he is stating, unlike people who are evidently biased about the "other". Also, a researcher in a post-modern post-structuralist age combines subjective and objective devices more consciously and delves in heterogenous research methodologies. It is naive to suggest that a Chicago professor in the late 20th century still uses the monolithic Enlightenment tool for his research. Also, and this needs to be emphasised, what Kripal translated is evidently true... u can grab a copy of Kathamrita and read it for urself. It is also true that the Ramakrishna mission left out these very lines in the English translation (and dont u scent the discourse of control in here?). Kripal's translation is not dismal -- far from it. Where he erred, for example in the translation of "maagi"... the word itself is used for various purposes, and Ramakrishna's use of it is often ambivalent (noone can leave out the abusive strain from the use of the word completely, especially in the late 19th century Bangali perspective). .. btw, Kathamrita in Bengali is not published by the mission (but by the Kathamrita Bhavan)... so there's no point in saying that monks of the Order could have censored the portions. Yes.. there are no absolutes... and hence the Avatarvaad as well as the homoerotic strain... both are alleged "facts". If Ramakrishna is deemed to be a queer bisexual, a transsexual... that also is not absolute. (And that which is Absolute has never been an uchhishta)The canonisation of Ramakrishna's "thought" is also not absolute. Nothing is absolute.... so even views about Ramakrishna's sexuality and spirituality are not absolute. We can engage ourselves in this plethora of suggestions... and I as a Ramakrishnite can find unity even in these divergences. Perhaps we are talking about similar things with different word-bags. (water/paani/ jol). An article on Ramakrishna, a man who had the guts to proclaim "jata moth tata poth" cannot seriously leave out any moth... any opinion, even if the Math rails and storms. The Math's views about Ramakrishna is only one of the many ways to see him(and not that there is only a single view within the Math itself-- Brahmananda differs considerably from Abhedananda)... and to leave aside other ways of seeing him is like the dogmatic blabbering which Ramakrishna detested himself.To include Kripal in the article is not an effort to be "scientific" (whatever it may mean) but merely to place all the views about Ramakrishna before us . This should include so-called "western" as well as "eastern" perspectives... facts testify that all the disciples of Ramakrishna were not always towing the now-Official-math line...and so there's no monolithic "view" about Ramakrishna... what we have are a number of views... Each of them stands open to scrutiny.... -- Rangeet

The crux of the matter is this: X builds a theory. X uses certain assumptions( what you call "subjective devices" ), methodology and tools to formulate his theory. Now, if the very methodology/ tools X uses are under scrutiny and in dispute, then, forget validity, there is no theory in the first place. A theory has to pass certain rigours before it can be called one. Hence my contention that kali's child does not deserve any space here.

I'am not so insecure about thakur as to suggest that their be just one view. But, all views should be arrived at through rigorous and robust frameworks. Kali' child does not qualify as a view. Varahamihira 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

[edit] New addtion

I note a new addtion: "The book emphasizes upon an alleged homoerotic strain in Ramakrishna's life, sadhana and philosophy. It has been criticized by the Mission as being based on many mistranslations and deceptions."

I suggest that the above be changed as follows: The book theorizes on a homoerotic strain in Ramakrishna's life, sadhana and philosophy. It has been critiqued by Hindu followers and the Ramakrishna Mission as being based on mistranslations of primary sources and an incorrect use of pychoanalysis as a tool.

The suggestion is more accurate and more "NPOV"!! If no contention, I will assume the new suggestion is good to use. Varahamihira 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

I find your new suggestion more accurate and more "NPOV". --vineeth 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well.. as for myself (who had added the first sentence, not the second), I have problems with your suggestions. For example, the phrase... "Hindu followers"... I am a Hindu follower too but I do not allege Kripal of wilful mistranslation.. how to define a consensus of Hindu followers... and who precisely is a Hindu follower... and besides a Ramkrishnite can well be someone who is not a Hindu follower...there is no consensus about what the Hindus think about Ramakrishna and it would be naive to generalise. I don't have probs when Ramakrishna Math and Mission is mentioned because its true that it has disagreed to Kripal's suggestions. However, it must be noted that the Math does not have jurisdictional authority to monitor what people think about Ramakrishna... The Math is free to decide its opinion about Kripal's work and so are we free to judge for ourselves. As far as "emphasized" being changed to "theorised" I have no probs but I would insist on the use of the word "alleged". I think the phrase "and an incorrect use of pychoanalysis as a tool" is better than "and deceptions".... Rangeet

[edit] References

Tried to supply the relevant references to the citations that were sought for. .... Rangeet

[edit] Small NPOV line

"and was declared intellectually unsustainable by a handful of small-minded 'intellectuals'. "

seems sarcastic and NPOV to me. If others agree, please change it.128.211.254.142 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — goethean ॐ 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] monograph by Swami Tyagananda

I just reverted a link to the following URL [1] of a personal web site which provides a download of a monograph written by a Swami Tyagananda who in the monograph says: "I am currently the minister of the Ramakrishna-Vedanta Society in Boston, Massachusetts. Before coming to the United States in 1998, I was editor of the Vedanta Kesari, a journal of the Ramakrishna Order."

The title of the monograph is Kali's Child Revisited, or, Didn't Anyone Check the Documentation? The monograph bears the copyright: "Copyright © 2000 by Swami Tyagananda".

I want to mention my reversion of the link to explain that my concern is not necessarily with the monograph itself, but rather with the copyright issues associated with distribution of a copyrighted monograph via a personal web site, which seems to me to fail the test of WP:EL. I have read both the book Kali's Child and the monograph by Swami Tyagananda. My impression is that the 103-page monograph is a thoughtful work and may be noteworthy if it can be shown to be a response from the Ramakrishna order. However the copyright is by an individual, not by the order, and the distribution of the monograph is from a personal web site and not from an official source of the Ramakrishna order.

At the very end of the monograph (p.103) the author says "The notes above are skeletal at best; the essay and notes are simply my own brief response to Kali's Child." However immediately following this closing paragraph appears the address "Ramakrishna Vedanta Society, 58 Deerfield Street, Boston, MA 02214" which implies endorsement of the essay by that organization.

Further investigation may be in order to determine if the monograph does in fact represent any sort of official position and if the monograph is distributed through any channel that might meet the test for WP:EL. Kripal's response to this monography is mentioned at Jeffrey_Kripal#Criticism.

Buddhipriya 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)