Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

replace with draft article

hi all, I propose to replace the current article on Ramarkishna with Draft/Ramakrishna, which is more elaborate. We can then work to improve the language and content of that article.

Ramashray 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No way. The draft article is not from a neutral pont of view. It incorporates material that is widely disputed. This material must be rendered neutral before it is incorporated. --goethean ॐ 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have inserted the text from the draft article under the section "Traditional biography". If anyone has problems with my edits and additions, let's discuss it here on that talk page. --goethean ॐ 16:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have some problems! The very first line…was a Bengali religious leader is jarring. Just because he was born in Bengal you don’t call him Bengali. That smacks of Indian parochialism. Ramakrishna was a universalistic as was Jesus and Buddha. At the most one can say that he was born in Bengal (give the name of the village, if you like). Secondly the term Traditional has been (ab)used in all the five paras. Do you mean that the life story is not authentic? What are those events that you consider not authentic? Christopher Isherwood says that “Ramakrishna's life, being comparatively recent history, is well documented. In this respect, it has the advantage over the lives of other earlier phenomena of a like nature.” If it is so, did you compare with the well documented books available? 61.0.164.101 12:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I find your first point very odd. He was Bengali. Yes, Jesus was universalistic, but the Wikipedia entry on him starts out — correctly — by calling him Jewish.
As for your second, I agree with Isherwood that Ramakrishna's life is very well documented, especially compared to that of Jesus or the Buddha. But what we have here are essentially stories, mostly promulgated by partisans — Ramakrishna's followers. It's too much to expect those with a physicalistic mentality to accept them as fact. So I labelled them as traditional accounts — stories. --goethean ॐ 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, calling Bengali and calling Jewish are not the same. The former is based on Language, the latter, on Race. That's why I say, simply call him Hindu. Yes, now I understand why you labelled the stories as Traditional. But couldn't you find anything authentic? Why don't you add some authentic events if well documented works are available was my refrain. Otherwise, why one should be interested to read only simple hearsay stories in Wikipedia? For that I can go to Geocities sites. 61.0.164.186 01:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that your point about Ramakrishna being Bengali is completely wrong. What you say does not coincide at all with my knowledge of India. A person is considered Punjabi if their parents are Punjabi, not because they speak Punjabi (although that is usually the case). I assume the same is true of Bengalis.
I agree that the stories should be sourced. Obviously, it would be better to select stories from a source like the Kathamrita, and I will do that when I can. --goethean ॐ 16:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay! Go ahead! 61.0.164.80 12:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jewishness is based on religion and ethnic origin; being Bengali is based on language and ethnic origin. I fail to see why one is a more valid categorization than the other. Sri Ramakrishna was a Bengali, because that's where he was from and Bengal was the environment that shaped him. To say he was Hindu is, if anything, more contentious and more limiting, because it would restrict the universalism of his message to one religious group. If Ramakrishna transcended religious boundaries, is it fair to say he was (merely) a Hindu? I like much better the formation Ramakrishna was a Bengali who transcended caste and creed. QuartierLatin 1968 6 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
Can we revisit the 'traditional' label? As in most saint or popular figure's case, followers will document a biography and in the absence of criticizers etc. that is usually the only version available. Instead of labelling it 'traditional', I would like to keep the facts but replace some of the phrases (ex spiritual experiences) with a more neutral stance. Let me know if anyone has problems with this or would like to discuss before I proceed shortly. --Pranathi 19:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

anony edits

this was me. I got logged out somehow. --goethean ॐ 15:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article Title

Bhagawan?

Swami Vivekananda uses this epithet before the name of Ramakrishna in his epistles written to his brother disciples as back as 1893. Now also Ramakrishna devotees world wide are using this in their congregations. Why not retain it? Apnavana 16:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not the name by which he is generally known in India or elsewhere. --goethean ॐ 5 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Paramahamsa

Google shows clearly that the ...MAH... form dominates in English over the ...MH... spelling. But it also makes clear, by a factor of 40 that "Ramakrishna" suffices. "Paramahamsa" clearly belongs in the name cluster at the head of the lead sent, but creates unnecessary confusion about whether he is the Ramakrishna. Seeing no evidence of previous contrary discussion, i am boldly making the move & fixing any dbl rdrs that result.
--Jerzy•t 16:35, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Devanagari and Bengali transliterations

Can any Indian contributors help supply us with the spelling of Ramakrishna in Devanagari and Bengali, like the Gandhi article has? --goethean ॐ 8 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)


Charismatic leader

The categorization is defined as:

In traditional authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from tradition, in charismatic authority from the personality and leadership qualities of the individual (charisma), and in legal (or rational-legal) authority from powers that are bureaucratically and legally attached to certain positions. A classic example of these three types may be found in religion: priests (traditional), Jesus (charismatic), and the Roman Catholic Church (legal-rational).

Ramakrishna Paramahmsa does not have a large following because of his traditional or legal authority. His followers are attracted by his personal qualities - he is a charismatic leader. I am reinserting category - if one person does not find him charismatic that does not merit removal. please discuss objections here.--Pranathi 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy should be removed

The controversy is not regarding SriRamakrishna's life and should be removed. He is worshipped as god by millions and some scantily read book info should not be considered a controversy of his life. Whoever wants the information should start a new one for Jeffrey Kripal or Kali's Child and put this as a controversy there.

--Sundaraz 01:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the section takes up too much weight in the page. I don't think it should be removed but tagged onto reception and replaced by something short like :
Recently, Kali's Child, a book by Jeffery Kirpal, Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, alleged that Ramakrishna was driven by homoerotic, pedophiliac passions. While it is acclaimed in the US, Indian criticism has been vocal about the book's content. They allege that Kripal has only elementary knowledge of Bengali and Tantra, but has selectively interpreted Bengali texts to suit the basic theme of his book. The book has also triggered much debate into the alleged biases and shoddy scholarship of Hinduism studies in the US. - pranathi
replacing with proposed coontent since I didn't hear objections.--Pranathi 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the change.--sundaraz 15:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Nope... I disagree. This is an Encyclopedia and NOT a religious tract. Dr. Kripal's work is scholarly, thought debated. If you censor it out again, I will NPOV protest this article. Emyth 00:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The external links section can include related books, including critical ones. I do not see the need to delete it, althogh it is a minority POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit and sources

The article needs copyediting and NPOV by means of attributing the material to one or more of the sections in "Biography" ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Cleanup notice

Article needs:

  • NPOVing and attributions of assertions
  • Sources
  • Sources for quotations

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

hindu renaissance

why is "hindu renaissance" pointing to "bengal renaissance"? though they do overlap, they are not the same thing.--ppm 01:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

some thoughts

It seems unfortunate that such an important article is so awfully written. Why does a biography need a elaborate explanation in the beginning why it should be considered authentic, instead of pointers to relevant sources? Not to mention the POV statements, which not only is not encyclopedic, but glosses over and hides the enormous social impact of Ramakrishna. The whole article is full of such exasperasting follies. --ppm 00:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I could not agree more with you, that is why the cleanup tags are there. Be bold and work on it to fix these very obvious problems. I can help a bit, time permitting. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Shmitra

Thank you for your recent excellent additions/corrections to the article. Could you please add a list of the sources you are using to Ramakrishna#Sources? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody provide some of Ramakrishna's parables? I can't really remember any, much less give a reference. I have to say I have a paucity of references right now. I would appreciate someone adding them, or editing whatever I wrote depending on references.--ppm 23:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Goethean

Why was the "initiation" section removed? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

can we have discussions?

can we have discussions before wholesale reversals? I hope we don't want to see an edit war here. --ppm 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to understand the reason for these wholesale reverts. Goethean, care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Many facets

It seems that some anon users have problem with the idea that Ramakrishna's contributions were multifaceted. Though there should be a substantial section descrining the religious perspectives (I started such a section), that is not all of what he was about and should be included in a encyclopedia.--ppm 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence from the intro

I deleted the sentence that incorrectly attributed the quote "He who as Rama, He who was Krishna. . ." to Swami Vivekananda. It was actually Sharatchandra Chakravarty who wrote that, quoting Vivekananda as saying Ramakrishna himself said it. [1] So not only is the sentence incorrect, but the quote itself is hearsay. --Smithfarm 19:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


Draft article

There is still a draft article at here and another here. Can someone confirm that that drafts are now redundant and can be deleted - it is very confusing having both in existence. Kcordina Talk 14:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a comparision of the 2 drafts, thru vim, and i found that both the articles are 99% same. i feel this one can be deleted. I need so time to merge the other one with the main article, after which even this draft can be deleted. --vineeth 17:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged the article for deletion - once you've checked the other one, just add a db tag to it. Kcordina Talk 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

repetition

I have deleted the repetitive sentence regarding J.kripal's book from the comtemporary influence paragraph.Bharatveer 08:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

oops...my mistake. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 15:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/m/Talk%7ERamakrishna_Archive_2_37ed.html"