Talk:Ramakrishna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ramakrishna article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject India (Rated B-Class) 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. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale by the India project. WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) 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] 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. WikiProject Hinduism (Rated B-Class) 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 B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Archives

1, 2

Contents 1 Better attacks on Kripal, please. 2 Ramakrishna Mission + translations 2.1 Suppressed diary and book 3 'Better', not 'more' 4 New article? 5 POV, Undue Weight in Contemporary Scholarship section 6 Proposed rewrite of POV/Undue Weight section 6.1 Kali's Child 6.2 Shorter version 6.2.1 References 7 Reverting by Priyanath 8 Different versions - long, medium, short 9 Kakar 9.1 Third opinion 10 Templates 11 Templates, POV, rewritten section 12 Sources 13 Intro 14 Bengali quotation 15 Translation of Hatcher text 16 Urban misquoted Sil's review?! 17 Kathamrita translation, forthcoming scholarship 18 Roland 19 Invading the Sacred as source 20 Vivekananda's letters 21 New section

[edit] Better attacks on Kripal, please.

This edit adds a mention of and link to a review of a prize-winning academic religious studies book. The review was written by a retired civil servant and appeared in a daily Channai newspaper. I submit that in most academic areas, mentioning such a review would be considered giving undue weight to a perspective. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is actually a review of "Invading the Sacred, An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America", and it reflects the way Hindus in general feel about Kripal's book, so mentioning it is necessary in my opinion. V. Sundaram is more than just a retired IAS officer.[1] --Mankar Camoran^talk 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the linked site, he has a degree in economics and is an associate newspaper editor. The point stands.

...it reflects the way Hindus in general feel about Kripal's book...

Well, you haven't established that at all. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I cannot give the opinion of each and every Hindu, but if you read this and [.....] you will understand. --Mankar Camoran^talk 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the Academy is mentioned in the article, its criticism should also be mentioned. Also, News Today does not say that it is the personal opinion of the author which means it is the opinion of the newspaper, so I have changed that as well. I think it is now good enough. --Mankar Camoran^talk 10:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The criticism is more indirect. In particular, I found this paragraph questions the Academy's neutrality:

Kripal tells us that his is the standard methodology of advanced historico-critical studies as practised in the American Academy. I seriously doubt it. Do the Jesus Seminar scholars take Jesus' talk about his return to "unite with his followers" or Paul's supreme desire to know Christ and be united with him (be "in Christ") as mutual "homosexual entry"? Is Jesus pathologized simply because people said "He's gone mad" and Jesus' parents were concerned; and the Pharisees affirmed "He has Beelzebul in him"(Mark 3:21)? Does Jesus' foot function as a sexual object – "the sinful foot of God" – when "a woman with a bad name in town" anoints it and covers it with kisses (Luke 7:38)? And When Jesus sits down and dines with prostitutes and sinners (Matt 9:10) is the "intercourse" sexual? When Jesus proclaims that it would be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement than for the city that will not receive his disciples is he taken to be projecting his own sexual perversions and psychotic delusions of grandeur? Or, when Johann Tauler, the 14th century German mystic, writes "one who would know much about these (spiritual) matters would often have to keep to his bed, for his bodily frame could not support this", is this taken as evidence of massive sexual trauma? Do Kripal's colleagues in the American Academy take the Christian distinction between agape and eros simply as "so much theological talk"; and the early Christian "love-feasts" (that's where the concept of agape originated) as plain "sexual orgies" of "erotic communities"? This is precisely how Kripal has argued throughout Kali's Child. It was with good reason then that Huston Smith wrote that Kripal ought to have written about homosexual eroticism in Christian mysticism before writing Kali's Child.

Kripal has mentioned that this is the "standard methodology of advanced historico-critical studies as practised in the American Academy" and he has followed them to interpret Hindu terms and passages, but the Academy hasn't followed these methods to interpret Christian passages. This seriously undermines the Academy's credibility and it should be mentioned. --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A general critique of the methods of Anmerican academics needs to be included in an article on Ramakrishna? Are you listening to yourself? — goethean ॐ 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added academic sources that bring into question Kripal's work. I believe this approach is better than basing criticism on religious reasons ('Hindus were offended' for example), since the book does purport to be an academic (psycho)analysis. I highly recommend Invading the Sacred.* It not only questions the academic underpinnings of Kripal's book, but completely discredits them.

*Ramaswamy, Krishnan; Antonio de Nicolas (2007). Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America. Delhi, India: Rupa & Co.. ISBN 978-8129111821.  ~ priyanath talk 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very grateful to you for adding relevant material from the book. I could not but be reminded of this conversation from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:

M. picked up another book, Munger's New Theology. Dr. Sarkar noticed it.

DOCTOR: "Munger has based his conclusions on nice argument and reasoning. It is not like your believing a thing simply because a Chaitanya or a Buddha or a Jesus Christ has said so."

M. (smiling): "Yes, we should not believe Chaitanya or Buddha; but we must believe Munger!"

DOCTOR: "Whatever you say."

M: "We must quote someone as our authority; so it is Munger." (The doctor smiles.)

Thanks again! --Mankar Camoran^talk 12:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, how about some contemporary scholarship that views Ramakrishna in a positive light? (That is, not attributing his mysticism to suppressed sexuality etc.) There must be some contemporary scholars who give a different reading of Ramakrishna than Kripal, Sil, etc. If we include some of those here, perhaps balance could be better achieved.

Devadaru (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, how about renaming the section to "Controversies" or "Controversial scholarship"? The section deals only with controversial works at present. It can be renamed again when more universally accepted works are added. --Mankar Camoran^talk 11:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Very few academic works are ever "universally accepted". — goethean ॐ 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

By "universally accepted" I meant works which are not considered controversial or offensive in academic circles. --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Its going to be difficult to find significant works of scholarship that abide by the Ramakrishna Mission's puritanical, sanitized image of RK. I don't think that there are any contemporary works of scholarship that are uncontroversial by your standards. The header should stay the way it is. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also: Kali's Child and Kripal's work generally is not "considered controversial or offensive" in academic circles. It is only in India (and among conservative Indian NRIs in the US) that it was taken as outrageous and insulting. And I don't think that Sil's work generated any controversy. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already mentions "significant works of scholarship" exposing Kripal and the Academy for what they are. And just for your information, it is not controversial just by my standards. Huston Smith writes : "I doubt that any other book – not even those of early, polemical, poorly informed, and bigoted missionaries – has offended Hindu sensibilities so grossly. And understandably, for despite Kripal's protestations to the contrary in "Secret Talk : The Politics of Scholarship in Hindu Tantrism"(HDSB, Winter 2000/01), Kali's Child is colonialism updated." He is not an Indian. --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect Huston Smith about one hundred times more than your collection of Hindutvan scholars. But I think that he has made a mistake in this case. — goethean ॐ

[edit] Ramakrishna Mission + translations

Here's a question that you don't have to answer. It is only intended to make you wonder whether your side is 100% right and mine is 100% wrong. Why has the Ramakrishna Mission never, ever published an unexpurgated version of the Kathamrta? Why is every single translation that they put out abridged? Thy have published hundreds and hundreds of books on every subject of Indian religion and philosophy. But every single translation of the Kathamrta has sections removed. Why do you think that is? I would like to obtain an English translation of the complete Kathamrta. I cannot, due to the interference of the Ramakrishna Mission, the people who are supposedly caring for RK's legacy. A bit odd, wouldn't you say? — goethean ॐ 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We are actually on the same boat. I have absolutely no respect for "your" scholars and you have absolutely no respect for "my" scholars! Also, RK's main biography is not the Gospel, it is:

Saradananda, Swami; Swami Jagadananda (1952). Sri Ramakrishna The Great Master. Sri Ramakrishna Math. 

I, following Kripal, disagree. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example of Kripalian distortion! --Mankar Camoran^talk 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You can actually find the unabridged version of the Gospel here. --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The first three of five books, anyways. QED. — goethean ॐ 16:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Be patient. The rest will come. --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From here: I have made a literal translation, omitting only a few pages of no particular interest to English-speaking readers.

So, as far as I can see, my point stands that 122 years after the death of Ramakrishna, there exists no English translation of the complete, unabridged, unexpurgated Kathamrta. Even though there exists a huge organization and publishing house, supposedly dedicated to Ramakrishna's legacy. And yet supporters of the Ramakrishna Mission see no problem with this. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the book I was referring to. --Mankar Camoran^talk 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the HTML source of that page, the website was created in 1996. I wonder how long we've been "patiently waiting" for the last two volumes to be 'processed'? You are probably unaware of this (having, I assume, along with the vast majority of Kripal's critics, never read Kali's Child), but (according to Kripal) most of the "secret talk" is in the last two volumes. — goethean ॐ 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how Kripal got to know all these things. --Mankar Camoran^talk 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's his job -- he's a religion scholar. In 1983, Malcolm Mclean, a professor at Otago University in New Zealand, for his PhD dissertation, translated the entire Kathamrta. Unfortunately, this translation has not been published and I have not yet been able to obtain a copy. Kripal cites this translation in Kali's Child. He also compares many of M's narratives to those of Saradananda's, and finds M's accounts to be invariably more accurate. That's why I don't consider the lilaprasanga to be a primary source document. It's frankly quite sad that I know all of this and you don't, and it once again shows that the Ramakrishna Mission is in the business of covering up facts rather than distributing them. — goethean ॐ 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some people feel the Ramakrishna Mission has some kind of conspiracy to "cover up" stuff. But they publish the Bengali Kathamrita without any omissions or cover-ups! And the Lilaprasanga! Swami Nikhilananda was writing for Americans of 1942; obviously, certain passages of the Kathamrita would have been considered shocking if literally translated. So he judiciously left out a few passages. But it doesn't seem like a conspiracy. "Sanitized"? Well, how about "adapted for a Western audience of 1942"? And the Mission doesn't have legions of swamis who are excellent translators and who want to retranslate the Kathamrita. Nikhilananda's version is so well-done (excepting the omissions). And the publishers are not the Ramakrishna Mission but the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New York, who might not grant permission to alter that text. But I think that other translation mentioned above is completed in print (though not yet online). Anyhow, another translation is available here(though not for free).

Devadaru (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ramakrishna Mission is a large, global organization which publishes hundreds of books per year, mostly commentaries on Indian scriptures. In 100 years they have not found the need to published an unexpurgated English translation of their guru. Yes --- to me this does demonstrate that they are hiding something from the public. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, they do publish hundreds of books, no doubt. But not, I think, hundreds of new books every year. Perhaps a couple of dozen new releases in a year? (We could check that, of course...) Yes, the Mission is conservative, no doubt. But willful concealement? Well, I guess it comes across that way to Kripal and others, but not to me. Especially since they publish the unexpurgated Kathamrita. Of course, they only published that when the copyright ran out; that was held (I suppose) by the descendents of the original author. But now that the copyright has expired, anyone could translate the book. The Mission doesn't own the copyright! Devadaru (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suppressed diary and book

The “850-page diary by Mahendranath Gupta” which is said to be suppressed by Kripal is surely not owned by the Mission. As I have heard at least, the descendents of Mahendranath Gupta, the author of the Kathamrita (which he wrote with the help of this diary) own the diary, not the Mission. If the Mission doesn't own it, how can they suppress it! Of course, anyone is free to claim that they suppress it; but the facts don't seem to support that claim. And since the Mission itself publishes Ram Chandra Datta's Jivanavrttanta, the claim that it suppressed that work is ridiculous. These claims could be dropped from this article (although Kripal may well have made the claims; I haven't seen the second edition of the book to know whether he changed any of these claims) since they seem to be inaccurate. Devadaru (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They "seem" to be inaccurate? Citations, please. — goethean ॐ 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this first point on the talk page for Kali's Child. Kripal admits:

"I have also, I believe, overplayed the degree to which the tradition has suppressed Datta's Jivanavrttanta. Indeed, to my wonder (and embarrassment), the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable." (see: [2]).

Tyagananda states:

"Neither the diaries nor their copies are in the Ramakrishna Order's archives. The original diaries are with M's descendants, and scholars—including a monk of the Ramakrishna Order whom I know—have seen those diaries, even photographed them, without undue difficulty." (see [3] or [4])

Thanks. Devadaru (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Better', not 'more'

Users Priyanath and Mankar Camoran have been gradually adding more and more negative reviews of Kali's Child to the article. There were positive reviews, but none have been added. Therefore, this section of the article is unbalanced. I am adding a POV template to the article until I can go to the library and research the general tenor of the reception of Kripal's book. — goethean ॐ 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't 'reviews', but issues that some very serious scholars have with Kripal's basic premise. The mention of Kripal's book, and the response by serious scholars, are both 'Contemporary Scholarship', which is the title of the section after all. Both 'sides' are neutral POV in the sense that they are a fairly dispassionate discussion of a very controversial work. I think that the section has achieved a neutral POV as it stands. Keep in mind that Kripal's work by itself could equally be seen to express a strong POV. In fact, this is simply scholars discussing whether it's valid to apply Freudian erotic psychoanalysis to Ramakrishna, and whether the proper methodology was used to reach the conclusions that Kripal did. Kripal and his side say yes, others say no. Both sides should get equal weight, and they do.~ priyanath talk 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. You describe an event, and then you use neutral language to describe the response to it. By your argument, we would describe what Gandhi did, and then describe the British conservative party's response to it. Then we would have one paragraph pro, one against. That is completely absurd. The response to Kali's Child was not uniform outrage. It was (first) mostly positive response from academia, and then drummed-up outrage from other sources, like a retired civil servant writing in a Chennai daily newspaper, the notability of which is highly debatable. But the picture that you have painted is completely one-sided. From your version of this article, one would get the absolutely false impression that the book was condemned from all sides. On the contrary, Kripal is a highly respected scholar who has been attacked by religious conservative activists who will not tolerate their guru being subjected to academic study. Fortunately, American scholars have not been silenced by Victorian Hindutvans. And mainstream media are not controlled by, and do not conform to the dictates of conservative religious activists. This article will be covering media sources other than those featuring your carefully selected group of conservative religious activists. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is not completely one sided, but actually quite balanced. It mentions that Kripal's book is a psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna. That is questionable, and should be mentioned (and is). It mentions that the book won an award. The award is rightly questioned. It mentions that Kripal accuses Ramakrishna of homoerotic passions and teachings and pedophiliac passions. That is a fairly extreme POV, which should be questioned, and is. Article says that Ramakrishna's mystical visions were actually erotic. That's also a fairly extreme POV, which is balanced by other scholars in the article. The section is entirely balanced, with Kripal's view of Ramakrishana (Homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.) balanced by scholars who disagree. This is done without any attacks against Kripal.

The controversy about the book was overblown, on both sides. There was a great deal of outrage, ad hominem attacks, straw man and red herring arguments from both sides. You present one side in your paragraph above, but entire articles and book chapters have been written about the two-sided controversy. I think that distracts from the real issue, the scholarship of Kripal's book, and the points that it makes. The article now covers those evenly, as I point out. I personally think that the two paragraphs about the book could each be cut in half and merged into one paragraph, but am happy with the current condition, where each side is given equal weight, as I show above. ~ priyanath talk 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does not explain that there were positive reviews (which there were --- it would be extremely odd for a book with no positive academic reviews to receive an academic award), and that these reviews were by scholars, rather than by unqualified people like the retired civil servant I mentioned above. I will remedy this situation as soon as I can go to the library and do the research. Until then (or until someone else balances the text), the template stays. — goethean ॐ 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article?

I propose that a new article be created on the lines of Jesus' sexuality and Homosexual readings of Jesus and John instead of enlarging this section. --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, those articles already exist. If they didn't, my response would be "more power to you". In fact, maybe I can suggest some references, like Ronald H. Miller, an article that I wrote (Miller believes that Saint Paul had homoerotic desires, that Jesus was not a virgin, and that Paul's guilt over his homoeroticism fueled the central Christian doctrine of Original Sin). You are implying that such articles would offend me. In doing so, you are assuming that I am a conservative Christian. You assume this because you see my contributions to this article as attacks on Hinduism and Indian culture. But, as my comments above about translations shows, I am genuinely tring to get to (and write) the neutral truth about Ramakrishna. This means: not just the truth as the Ramakrishna Mission describes it, and not necessarily just the truth as postmodern US academics see it. You may not believe that I am trying to get to the truth. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you believe. But the rules of Wikipedia demand that you assume good faith. — goethean ॐ 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your comment. You mean something like Ramakrishna's sexuality. New articles are created when the current article is too long, not with the intent to hide information which someone finds disagreeable. — goethean ॐ 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like more opinions. --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But what is the intent of moving the text on Ramakrishna's sexuality to a new article? — goethean ॐ 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kali's Child received significant press, is therefore notable, and is rightly included in this article. So are the scholars who question the scholarship the book is based on. Moving it all to a new article doesn't make sense, except if the section here gets too large. In that case, there should still be a summary in this article. ~ priyanath talk 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It makes sense. --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Goethean - I certainly don't think that the review of Kripal's book should be hidden. It's an attempt by a western scholar to understand Ramakrishna, and is notable. Just like people here don't believe that you are a conservative Christian (per your struck out comment above), you have to understand that those wanting to make the article balanced are not just Hindu fundies or Ramakrishna fundies. But if someone says that Ramakrishna has pedophiliac tendencies, then of course the other side should be presented, if it's done by notable scholars, in an evenhanded way, which the article does now. What's all the big fuss? (I'm talking to both sides here). ~ priyanath talk 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the fuss? The fuss is the non-neutral, unbalanced, very carefully selected content that you have added to the article --- all attacks on Kripal, some clearly non-notable. And the positive (scholarly) reviews of Kripal's work, which you have omitted. Which, when I can, I will add to the article to balance the coverage of the subject matter, at which time the template can be removed. Other than that, no fuss. — goethean ॐ 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

None of those references attack Kripal, that's one of the red herrings I alluded to above. They do pick at his scholarship and methodology. There is actually alot more where they came from. I only included notable academics commenting on issues specifically included in the Kripal book review/paragraph in this article. ~ priyanath talk 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the sources of criticism of Kripal's scholarship and methodology (there are too many sources to choose from, frankly, so I'm only including the most authoritative, though all of them are WP:RS). Narasingha Sil is perhaps the most notable now, since he has his own paragraph in this article. I left for the footnote Sil's opinion that Kripal is a "shoddy scholar with a perverse imagination who has thoughtlessly "ransacked" another culture and produced a work which is, in short, "plain shit"." And, I removed some of the Bhattacharyya quotes, shortening the paragraph. ~ priyanath talk 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. — goethean ॐ 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, I'm really making a good faith effort to find the best sources for this, in response to your concern that these people are not neutral, or not notable. There really are two sides to the story of Kripal's book. I sincerely believe that they are both being presented in a scholarly manner, and given the equal weight they each deserve. ~ priyanath talk 16:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have done nothing but continuously build up more and more coverage of the critiques of Kripal's book, ignoring anything positive that was said about it. That is not neutral. I have not yet had a chance to build up the positive material about the book in attempt to balance out your lop-sided contributions, but I will. — goethean ॐ 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV, Undue Weight in Contemporary Scholarship section

I've put the POV tag back in this section, per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

Changes to that section should be discussed here, just as I had been doing above. At this point, there is an extreme undue weight given to the positive 'reviews' of the book. One could easily add an equal amount of scholarly negative reviews to balance it, but it's obvious the whole section is being given undue weight already. One possibility would be to have a summary in this article, and break off a separate article on Scholars views of Ramakrishna's sexuality. I've added a note at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board to invite other editors who are interested in helping to resolve this dispute. I noted there that I'll be taking a few days off from editing here to give others a chance to resolve something that I obviously couldn't. ~ priyanath talk 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you, User:Priyanath, who added a completely non-neutral, obviously cherry-picked paragraph consisting entirely of negative snippets and sentence fragments, which gave a completely inaccurate --- indeed, deceptive --- view of the reception of Kripal's book. Then you defend your contribution with the clearly false claim that a paragraph which describes the book is actually a paragraph that praises or appraises it. In response to your obviously POV contribution, I have added text which will make sure that the readers of this article are not decieved by your frankly dishonest addition. Why don't you fix your own contributions and try to contribute positively to the article rather than merely adding snippets which express your own POV? — goethean ॐ 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard. — goethean ॐ 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now significantly shortened the section on the positive reception of Kali's Child. Please let me know if you still feel that the article gives undue weight to this topic. — goethean ॐ 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view: I came here after reading Priyanath's comment on WT:HNB, and having read the Kali's Child section (this version), here are my views and suggestions for improvement

1. The first paragraph is ok though it needs some copyediting (small 'r' in Religious; wikilink Freudian, don't wikilink homoerotic twice etc) and tightening of prose (example, the last sentence does not make grammatical sense).
2. However the subsequent quotes and reviews do seem undue in this article (which is on Ramakrishna and not Kripal), and I think they should be considerably shortened; something along the lines "While certain scholars including X, Y, Z found the argument revelatory and compelling, others did not. The latter attributed Kripal's supposed errors to either misunderstanding of Hinduism or psychological analysis; incorrect translation; colonialism; or to a willful distortion of sources and evidence." (feel free to rephrase and add refs)
3. The quotes, reviews and criticism details can/should be added to either the Jeffrey J. Kripal page or to a new article on Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, which can then be linked from here.

I don't intend to edit the article myself at the moment, but hope Priyanath and Goethean will be be able to work out the differences. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a little perspective from the past... Various Ramakrishna devotees are absolutely vociferous in their missionizing with this page... They use the Wikipedia to produce a hagiography of their saint and will not tolerate any alternative views and perspectives to their their veneration of the man. As, I believe, the first Wikipedian to try to add a neutral, factual reference to Kripal's Kali's Child to the article, I eventually gave up under the onslaught of bad-faith and parochial argumentation by Ramakrishna missionaries. I see that it still continues. If there is ever a move to freeze a truly NPOV paragraph about Kripal's perspective as part of this article, I would join in testifying and voting for it. Emyth (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Abecedare for the comments. It seems to me also that a short mention of Kripal's work should be enough for this page, and the extensive quotations and discussion be left for either Jeffery Kripal or a separate page on the book itself. As for Emyth, yes, this article still comes across as written by devoted followers. I think a disciplined copyedit however could remove at least a good portion of the bias.

The controversy re: Kripal does show how difficult it is to attain NPOV, if indeed it is even possible (which I somewhat doubt in cases like this). Perhaps, more people on the planet would side against Kripal than with; but if only US residents were counted, Kripal might win. (This is my personal suspicion, not backed up by any hard facts.) Hope to get back to editing soon. Devadaru (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This conversation brings me to another thought. To my knowledge, few, if any, articles other than this one have a separate section for "contemporary scholarship". Instead, in most articles, the entire article consists of text informed by contemporary scholarship, and any text that is not so informed is progressively replaced by text which is. However, in this article, contemporary scholarship is (or appears to be) deeply at odds with historical understanding, which, perhaps we can all agree, is more hagiographic. I think that an eventual good version of this article would have all sections informed by contemporary scholarship, including Sil, Kripal, and Kakar, as well as the more devotee-like Ramakrishna Mission-approved sources. In other words, there is much work to be done to this article to bring it to "good article" status. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Any article that is passionately reviewed or edited by anyone is bound to face NPOV disputes - hopefully these will be worked out. About the section on "Kali's Child" - it seems a bit long in comparison to the rest of the article (except for the Legacy section) and appears to have a number of quotes with a similar theme that could easily be summarized, if deemed acceptable by others. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, as is mentioned above (I think), none of the material (quotes) on this article are mentioned on the Jeffery Kripal article, where it probably deserves more attention. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was almost a revelation to re-read Neutral point of view after many months. What a well-crafted treatment of the issue! Good reminders about avoiding "weasel words" and statements like "some say", "many people believe", and so on, and on sticking to verifiable facts. Devadaru (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've condensed the book reviewy parts of the Kripal supporters' statements, and kept the parts of the quotes that addressed specific aspects of scholarship. In other words, just saying 'this is a great book' isn't encyclopedic, except perhaps for an article on the book itself, which could have book reviews. The section is still absurdly long, with two thirds supporting or praising the book (the first two paragraphs), and one third questioning various aspects of scholarship, methodology, and academic integrity. One could easily add another paragraph disputing the academic scholarship, etc. of the book, in order to balance the two sides, but that is no solution, in my opinion.

P.S. I also removed the source of the reviews from the body of the article. Footnotes are enough for that. God forbid that we have two lines for every quote just stating the prestigious journal they were taken from. That's more appropriate for the back cover of the book itself, and for the footnotes here.

Both sides are valid to present, by the way. They meet WP:RS, and both carry the weight of some serious scholars. So both sides should be given equal weight.

I've added a tag for Undue Weight for that reason, and also for the reason that the subject itself is given undue weight in the overall article. I still believe the section fails on both grounds: NPOV and Undue Weight, so both tags should remain until this can be hashed out on the talk page. The solution, in my opinion, is to reduce those three paragraphs to one, with both sides presented equally, and break off the rest to the Kripal article.

Alternately, would be to add another paragraph from yet more sources, who question the use of Freudian analysis on someone dead for over 100 years, the fact that Freud himself questioned using his own methods on non-western minds, and more. That would help to balance the undue weight. What do others think? ~ priyanath talk 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I missed Abecedare's suggestion above. I think it's a big step in the right direction and will work on a condensed version of the now overly long version, and propose it here in the coming days - and propose moving the lengthy quotes (on both sides) to the Kripal article. And of course see if we can develop consensus on something that will be NPOV and give equal weight to both sides. Below is Abecedare's proposal again (which he said he wouldn't be able to do himself). The only slight disagreement I have is that the opening paragraph essentially is promoting Kripal's book and idea, so it may have to include some of the scholarly disagreement in that paragraph: ~ priyanath talk 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The first paragraph is ok though it needs some copyediting (small 'r' in Religious; wikilink Freudian, don't wikilink homoerotic twice etc) and tightening of prose (example, the last sentence does not make grammatical sense).
2. However the subsequent quotes and reviews do seem undue in this article (which is on Ramakrishna and not Kripal), and I think they should be considerably shortened; something along the lines "While certain scholars including X, Y, Z found the argument revelatory and compelling, others did not. The latter attributed Kripal's supposed errors to either misunderstanding of Hinduism or psychological analysis; incorrect translation; colonialism; or to a willful distortion of sources and evidence." (feel free to rephrase and add refs)
3. The quotes, reviews and criticism details can/should be added to either the Jeffrey J. Kripal page or to a new article on Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, which can then be linked from here.

The only slight disagreement I have is that the opening paragraph essentially is promoting Kripal's book and idea, so it may have to include some of the scholarly disagreement in that paragraph

Do you think that merely describing a book is promoting it? Do you have a reason why the most talked-about/debated/notorious scholarly book on Ramakrishna in decades shoud not be described in the Ramakrishna article? If not, I suggest that with this statement, you are merely pushing to make a greater portion of the coverage of the book negative. — goethean ॐ 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Scholarly"? Surely you jest. Psychoanalyzing without a degree in psychoanalysis -- never mind that the approach outside clinical contexts has been discredited going on 40 years now -- on materials one can barely read without a dictionary, let alone grasp, is hardly the stuff of scholarship. Except, of course, in the walled garden of woo that is the RISA community in American academia, whence glowing reviews were naturally forthcoming. It's notorious and talked-about precisely because of its shoddiness, exposing an outstanding problem with a certain section of purportedly "mainstream" academia. It's like the rare B-movie that's so bad that it's talk-worthy. rudra (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Back your name-calling up with some citations and maybe they'll begin to be worth the time it took you to type it. — goethean ॐ 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations for what? That Kripal lacks credible credentials for psychoanalysis, never having been psychoanalyzed himself, nor having acquired formal training in it? That his Bengali is rudimentary? That the mailing list for the RISA community decided to conceal its academic interactions from non-members after the second controversy on dubious psychoanalyzing? You are clearly not up to speed on the issues. Google is your friend. rudra (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rewrite of POV/Undue Weight section

I've taken into account Goethean's comments above, as well as comments by Emyth, Devadaru, Abecedare, and Shruti14 and shortened the section to a more reasonable length - it could be shorter still in my opinion. Rather than removing quotes, I've put them into footnotes as well as I could. Please feel free to comment, remembering that we are all acting in good faith to produce a section that is balanced and neutral. ~ priyanath talk 21:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments (Devadaru):

I'm replying directly to each question, my replies by are in italics and followed by "—pr" ~ priyanath talk 05:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Actually, the book was published by the University of Chicago, not by Kripal. I've now fixed that, and the date (1995) is already included in the award, so I removed the first mention of the year. —pr
2. Rather than saying his theories were controversial, we could say, his "theories provoked controversy". Good idea, and done. I removed the previously specified location of the controversy (India), since it was obviously in the U.S. also, and among academics, and among non-academics - no need to specify all these things. —pr
3. Should the description of Sw. Tyagananda perhaps go in the footnote? Also, he is Hindu chaplain and head of Vedanta Society of Boston, but not, as far as I know, an official spokesman for the Mission. Good question - I included that info because he's not a known scholar, but is someone associated with Ramakrishna Mission which has the authority to respond to Kripal's charges. I think that's important, but what do others think? Was he speaking for Ramakrishna Mission or not? —pr
4. Kripal acknowledged that Ram Chandra Datta's Jivanvrttanta was indeed published by the Mission the same year Kali's child (first ed) came out. So he no longer claims that the Mission is supressing Jivanvrttanta (see [5]). Perhaps rather more important are his allegations of willful mistranslations and omissions in the English translations of the Bengali source texts. If so, the sentence could be recast to reflect that. If you can source that and edit it, that would be helpful. —pr
5. Note 9 has a date 1977. Is this a mistake? Yes, I changed it to 1997. —pr
6. Note 10: is the quote from Ramaswamy? It appears in Tyagananda's piece [6]. Maybe he's quoting Tyagananda. In that case, the quote marks will have to be carefully put to indicate it's a quote within a quote; or else, reference Tyagananda directly. It is Tyagananda, quoted in that book. I've fixed the reference, explaining that it is Tyagananda. —pr
7. There are two note 11s. I only see one - could be wiki problem. Refresh and look again? —pr
8. Another scholar, Alan Roland, questions Kripal's methods and conclusions from a psychoanalytic standpoint; that could also be mentioned, perhaps in the same line with Smith, Bhattacharya, and Lawson. (his paper is at http://alan-roland.sulekha.com/blog/post/2002/11/the-uses-and-misuses-of-psychoanalysis-in-south.htm#up32 (sulekha is currently a Wikipedia blacklisted site, hence the nowiki). Yes, that is yet another notable scholar - I'll look for a better reference. p.s., that is now done also. —pr
9. Would a link stating, "Main article at Kali's Child or something like that, be appropriate? I think so. —pr
10. This rewrite appeals to me as a succinct and acceptable presentation of Kripal's work and the response to it, suitable for this article for the time being; a more in-depth presentation would be appropriate for the article on Jeffrey Kripal. In future, if (as I suspect) Kripal's work is more thoroughly discredited, the section could be reduced or even removed. If however his work should be successfully defended and expanded, then the section naturally could grow. I agree. Even now, at best, it's only speculation about Ramakrishna, and I think that both sides are now well presented. —pr

Devadaru (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Two full paragraphs is still undue weight. The controversy, quote farm and all, should be covered in Kali's Child. All that's needed here is a summary: the principal claims in the book, and a balanced statement of the major facts, charges of bad scholarship etc on the one hand and encomiums from establishment academics on the other. No need to go into details, as that leads to the blizzard of references and footnotes which fools nobody. rudra (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I'll take a stab at a shorter version later today, if I can. ~ priyanath talk 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile, does Hugh Urban substantiate the mistranslation claim in his review? The sentence could also be read to mean that this is Kripal's claim, not Urban's (i.e Urban is paraphrasing.) And is Urban notable? He shares the exact same name -- Hugh B Urban -- with a retired professor of psychology at Penn State, whereas he is a much younger professor of comparative studies (whatever that is) at Ohio State. This makes finding stuff in Google scholar a bitch.) rudra (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like this young Urban here[7] at Ohio State, whose focus seems to be on sex in religion, by looking at his publication titles ('menstruating goddess', 'sex magic') and a couple of mentions of Kripal. Can't tell if he's notable or not. ~ priyanath talk 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the time of the review (1998) he was a brand new Ph.D., from the same school as Kripal (Chicago). Hardly an independent review, then. rudra (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the fact that these reviews appeared in important academic religion journals --- a fact that Priyanath has removed from the article --- that established their notability. The fact is that Kail's Child received positive reviews in all of the major academic journals of religion before Sil's review --- the same Sil who had earlier written a much more reductively psychoanalytic book on RK before Kripal had --- appeared in a Calcutta newspaper and created all of the outrage among Indians. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, I did not remove that fact from the article - I made sure that the religion journals are all noted in the citations in the footnotes, those that are supportive of Kripal and those that pointed out the flaws in his work. There is no need to name every single source in the middle of the article, footnotes and citations are how this is normally done. ~ priyanath talk 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Above, you and Rudra were discussing how notable Hugh Urban's opinion is. I responded that it is where his and other scholars' opinions were published (i.e., the main academic religion journals) which showed their opinions to be notable. However, you had moved the titles of the journals from the main text of the article to the footnotes. This move is what resulted in the discussion over Hugh Urban's notability. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the titles were moved because the article is already too long without every title of every religious or psychological journal included in the body of the article. Urban's notability, or lack thereof, doesn't change because of that. ~ priyanath talk 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a one paragraph version below the longer one. Which of these 'authorities' is notable is a question that needs to be answered. Roland certainly seems to be, given how many peer-review articles he has, and his specialty in the issue of westerners applying Freudian methods, which use so much symbolism, on other cultures. The short version gets rid of the quote farm, gratuitous quotes, and other extras that should be in the Kripal article (for example, the AAR award is for the 'Best First Book' of 1995, which is not as notable as it first sounds). Feedback on the short version would be appreciated. ~ priyanath talk 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The paragraph above Kali's Child also needs a rewrite, with this gem of a sentence: "Kakar sought a meta-psychological non-pathological explanation that focuses on the pre-Oedipal and the Lacanian Real, and connects Ramakrishna's mystical noesis with creativity." ~ priyanath talk 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kali's Child

Religious scholar Jeffrey Kripal wrote Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, a psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna,^[1][2] which won the American Academy of Religion's^[3] History of Religions Prize for the Best First Book of 1995.^[4] Kali's Child's primary thesis is that a great deal of Ramakrishna's mystical experiences were generated by the lingering results of childhood traumas, and sublimated homoerotic and pedophiliac passions. Kripal argues that "Ramakrishna’s mystical experiences...were in actual fact profoundly, provocatively, scandalously erotic."^[5] Kripal alleges that the Ramakrishna Mission has suppressed biographical material relating to Ramakrishna's erotic life, including Ram Chandra Datta's Jivanavrttanta^[6], and an 850-page diary by Mahendranath Gupta.^[7]

The theories proposed by Kripal provoked controversy among academics in the fields of religion and psychology, who disagreed over Kripal's scholarship, methodology, and conclusions. Narasingha Sil and Swami Tyaganananda (Hindu Chaplain at Harvard University and spokesman for the Ramakrishna Mission) wrote that Kripal's claims of suppressed source material were based on his own willful distortion of the original Bengali writings.^[8][9][10] Hugh Urban supported Kripal's work with the original Bengali texts, claiming that they had been previously mistranslated and censored by disciples of Ramakrishna.^[11] Kripal's credentials to apply Freudian psychoanalysis, and his conclusions, were questioned by Huston Smith, Alan Roland, Somnath Bhattacharya, and Gerald James Lawson.^{[12] [13][14][15]} John Hawley, William Radice, and Malcolm McLean found Kripal's analysis and conclusions to be convincing.^[16][17][18] Kripal responded to criticisms of his book in a new introduction to the second edition of Kali's Child, and in postings to his website,^[19] while others continued to question his research in Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America by Krishnan Ramaswamy and Antonio de Nicolas.^[20]

[edit] Shorter version

Here is a shorter version yet, considering feedback that this entire subject is being given undue weight by being so long, which I agree with. No footnotes yet - they can be added.

In 1995, Jeffrey Kripal wrote Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, which he called a psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna. Kali's Child's primary thesis is that Ramakrishna's mystical experiences were generated by the lingering results of childhood traumas and sublimated homoerotic and pedophiliac passions. Kripal also alleged that the Ramakrishna Mission has suppressed biographical material relating to Ramakrishna's erotic life, a claim challenged by some religious figures. Kali's Child provoked controversy after religious scholar Narasingha Sil wrote an article in The Statesman calling the book "plain shit". In subsequent articles, Kripal's translations, his conclusions, and his authority to apply psychoanalysis to Ramakrishna were questioned by several scholars, including Alan Roland, Huston Smith, and Somnath Bhattacharya. Other scholars found Kripal's arguments convincing. Kripal responded to the criticisms in journal articles and postings on his website, but stopped participating in the discussion in late 2002.

This version is unacceptable. You have removed the fact that the book was highly acclaimed in academia before it became controversial among Indians. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes. — goethean ॐ 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I also tweaked a bit, but I think this version is getting close. ~ priyanath talk 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I favour #3 also. Is it correct to say that the book is a Freudian psychoanalytic study? Or only that the author claims it is such? "…which he calls a Freudian psychoanalytic study of …"? To please supporters, the "Although" could be removed: "Kali's child was well-received among Western academics, but provoked controversy…" (of course, it was not universally well-received. But it received an award. Perhaps safer to stick to facts?) "Kali's Child received a prestigious award from the Academy of Religion, but provoked controversy…"? Devadaru (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Devadaru's point - remove 'Freudian'. And while the book did "receive an award", it wasn't "prestigious" (in fact minor), and it was definitely not well-received among all Western academics. In fact why would 'Western academics' be more notable to mention than 'Indian academics'? Or why even differentiate, since WP is supposed to be neutral? Would Sil, who received his last two degrees in the U.S., and teaches in the U.S., be a 'Western academic'? Too confusing, and not relevant, to make such a distinction. ~ priyanath talk 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

[edit] Reverting by Priyanath

This edit needs to be reverted. It is against Wikipedia guidelines to introduce a book in the words of its most vulgar critic. Move Sil's words further down in the page. — goethean ॐ 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The editorial by Narasingha Sil, a notable scholar, in a Calcutta paper is central to the controversy around the book, and therefore notable. There is no Wikipedia policy about introducing books with only testimonials and awards. ~ priyanath talk 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Sil started it with his article in the Statesman. The journal reviews followed, the RISA community defending one of its own. Otherwise, the book was headed for well-deserved mediocrity. rudra (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI --- I don't know (and don't care to know) exactly what your beef is with academia (/Western academics/religious scholars/rationality in general), but the constant sniping and editorializing is off topic and frankly a waste of everyone's time. Your comments will be read more closely and taken more seriously if they are on topic. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have no "beef" with "western academics" or "rationality in general". As for "religious scholars", there are the scholarly and there are those who play them on TV. That distinction, in fact, was the real controversy. rudra (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect Wikipedia to enshrine your impression that American scholars of South Asian religion are frauds? — goethean ॐ 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many notable American scholars of South Asian religion who are not frauds—in fact some are quoted in this article. Kripal's extremely dodgy scholarship and use of psychoanalysis (arguably fraudulent, since he has no training) have been called out by the most notable of those scholars. ~ priyanath talk 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See this for some spot-on commentary. The problem seems endemic, but it's especially acute in South Asian "religious studies". Hiding the RISA-L archives (after the Courtright affair) was the result of a rare and remarkable moment of introspection for the narcissists preponderating that list. rudra (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So you don't like Freudian hermeneutics. Just as importantly, I don't like chocolate ice cream. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different versions - long, medium, short

There are now three versions of the Kali's Child section.

1. The lengthy version currently in the article.
2. The shorter two-paragraph version above.
3. The short one-paragraph version above.

Abecedare, Devadaru, Rudrasharman, and myself have all given feedback that the long version (#1) needs to be shortened. Rudra and myself have spoken in favor of an even shorter version. Devadaru favors #2 as is, though he hasn't yet seen #3. It's clear that there is consensus building for one of the two shorter versions. It's assumed that the shorter versions would include a link for people to see more at Kali's Child. Feedback would be appreciated, namely, which version do you prefer, and how would you change that version to make it more neutral or encyclopedic?~ priyanath talk 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer #3, knowing that some changes still need to be worked out among editors. ~ priyanath talk 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "Contemporary Scholarship" section should be expanded to cover more works, by more authors, rather just the three we currently have. However, debate over Kali's Child has dominated discussion of RK for eleven years now. On the other hand, a short paragraph with a clear link to the main Kali's Child article may lead interested readers to read about the entire debate rather than snippets which can more easily be manipulated. So arguments can be made for all three alternatives. — goethean ॐ 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the #3 version be implemented. The article on Kali's Child has been nicely filled out by Goethean. Is there any reason to delay more? Devadaru (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be tweaked further, but with Kali's Child filled out, as you say, this version is as good as any for now. rudra (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the long version with version #3, since it has the strongest support. The entire section still needs some work, in my opinion. For example, psychoanalysis is considered pseudoscience by many. That should be part of the overall intro, but I imagine it might be OR unless there was a source discussing it in the context of Ramakrishna.

Regarding the short version, I agree it still needs alot of tweaking, but it's the best for now. Since Goethean seems to like the 'plain shit' addition, I've included it along with the 'shoddy scholarship' context. Also, the accusation by Kripal of suppression of biographical material needs to be clarified per Devadaru's points above, and I couldn't find the citation for Kripal's claim of a coverup. ~ priyanath talk 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

...psychoanalysis is considered pseudoscience by many.

Are you kidding me? You want to introduce a debate about the status of psychoanalysis into this article? Or you just want an editorial note reproducing your opinion? There is aleady a link to psychoanalysis. Interested readers can follow it. — goethean ॐ 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the short version with tweaking and a link to the other article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kakar

It seems to me that a novel claiming to be based on the lives of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda doesn't have much to do with "contemporary scholarship". It's a novel, after all, not a scholarly study! I think that para could be justifiably removed, as it was by Priyanath. It belongs, if anywhere, on the page for Sudhir Kakar, it seems to me. Devadaru (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) --Devadaru (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can justify anything you want. I thought that we were trying to write a good article. My mistake. It is clear that Sudhir Kakar is a contemporary scholar who has written extensively on Ramakrishna, and --- from his own words, which I cited --- that his novel Ecstacy was another example of that effort. Devadaru's removal of well-cited, relevant information should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fiction is pure trivia and fantasy, and is meaningless for this article. ~ priyanath talk 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about fiction, it is appropriate for this article to mention Kakar's novel. See Category:Representations of people in popular culture — goethean ॐ 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being in a section titled 'In popular culture', since it's not um, 'scholarship', even by the stretchy definition of this article. ~ priyanath talk 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't under scholarship, but nevertheless you inaccurately changed the header to "popular culture". Why? I have changed it back. — goethean ॐ 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You originally put it under 'contemporary scholarship', but changed that title. Modern culture also works. I chose popular culture because that's exactly the Cat you quoted above (read your note above, please), where you say "See Category:Representations of people in popular culture". ~ priyanath talk 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your new header is completely nonsensical. Please stop damaging the article. You have a section on "In modern culture" under "Contemporary reception". But "modern" is a broader term than "contemporary". Novels and music about Ramakrishna are responses to Ramakrishna's life. I will revert your change. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree. 'Response' is so vague as to be nonsensical. Usually the section header specifies (as in 'specific') what is underneath. Many editors wiser than you and I have added 'Popular culture' sections to articles. It is in fact the category you quoted to justify the addition after all. But I won't edit war on this - feel free to revert again. ~ priyanath talk 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me a "popular culture" section that has classical music listed and I'll support your version. — goethean ॐ 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, well, it seems to me that a novel in which the characters are "based on" someone, is different from any of the categories in the page noted above. The characters don't have the same names. And "based on" means, as I see it, based on Kakar's own very unusual (and to many people offensive) view of Ramakrishna. Its offensive nature doesn't disqualify it from being included here; but the fact that such a view is in the extreme minority does. So I don't see a strong case for presenting it here; I still think it belongs most appropriately in the article on Kakar. Devadaru (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, if Kakar's view of RK is offensive to someone, we had better censor it from Wikipedia, hadn't we? No matter if it is shared by most contemporary relgion scholars, they're all frauds after all. — goethean ॐ 03:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly read carefully. I wrote: "Its offensive nature doesn't disqualify it from being included here; but the fact that such a view is in the extreme minority does." Thanks. Devadaru (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, among cited opinions, Kakar's view is in the majority. — goethean ॐ 15:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kakar's novel is not about Ramakrishna. That it's "based" on him is irrelevant; had it been a runaway best-seller or otherwise notable in its own right, there might have been grounds to include it. rudra (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You say that its based on RK but not about him. That doesn't make any sense. — goethean ॐ 15:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Was Rushdie's The Satanic Verses about Muhammad? Was Mary Renault's Alexander Trilogy a work of history? rudra (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kakar's fictional novel is utter fantasy, and is not notable in an encyclopdia, unless it's in a a pop culture section, at best. ~ priyanath talk 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it strange how Kakar's fantasies match the conclusions in Kakar's, Sil's and Kripal's scholarly books? — goethean ॐ 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The novel is a fictitious story, whose characters are only claimed to be based on Kakar's view of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, not necessarily the generally accepted view of them, something the current article doesn't express clearly. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Hey. I saw there's a third opinion request for this page. Was the issue with the inclusion of the novel resolved? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to help if another opinion is needed. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the issue with the inclusion of the novel resolved?

Yes. The Indians on this talk page have together decided that coverage of the novel should be suppressed, because they don't like the conclusions of the recent scholarship on Ramakrishna. It offends their Victorian sensibilities. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's, um... a rather biting statement. You sure everything's resolved? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the situation as I understand it. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, okay. As long as these conclusions are relatively well-known and aren't WP:FRINGE, I think it'd be okay to include them. But that's just my take. If you guys need help, please feel free to post on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that stuff published in leading academic religion studies journals and by the University of Chicago doesn't qualify as fringe science. Actually, the beliefs of Rajiv Malhotra, a leader in the movement opposing contemporary Hindu studies, and who User:Rudrasharman pointed me to so that I would appreciate his view that all American Hindu studies scholars are frauds, come closer to deserving that term. — goethean ॐ 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Somnath Bhattacharyya's essay has only been published on the website of The Infinity Foundation (Rajiv Malhotra's website), and I don't think that it qualifies as a reliable source. It is certainly far, far below the standards of the journals which published the other authors listed in the same section. I suggest that it be removed. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation for Bhattacharyya (fn 43) from Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America. The Sil quote you've attributed to Bhattacharyya (fn 40) on Malhotra's website is not in that book as far as I can see. ~ priyanath talk 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

The POV templates can be removed as far as I'm concerned. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK by me too. Devadaru (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm traveling and won't be able to look or comment until late Monday. ~ priyanath talk 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Templates, POV, rewritten section

I can’t support removing the tags, as I explain below. If consensus supports removing the tags, then so be it - I’ve become busy in real life, and unfortunately will have to leave with these suggestions, and with my addition of the Roland material to the article. Note that Roland is head and shoulders above the others in terms of peer-reviewed articles on psychoanalysis, has the respect of his peers, and happens to specialize in this area. In his writings, he addresses all of the various approaches used by Rolland, Obeyesekere, Masson, Kakar, Kripal, and much more – so the Roland paragraph is not a response to Kripal’s book, but an expert’s view on applying p.a. to Ramakrishna, by a psychoanalyst who is actually notable for that. God forbid that there be an expert’s view expressed in this article, rather than just former classmates and fellow club members, but it has been done before on Wikipedia.

First, the article currently states “Other scholars, writing in major academic religion journals, called Kripal's arguments "thorough", "well documented" and "convincing". Those three words/phrases are single words pulled from entire reviews by Maclean, Hawley, Urban, and Radice. This isn’t a very accurate or traditional way of condensing academic articles, which is why my original proposed short version didn’t use selected pull quotes. Just for example, about 50% of Urban’s review is spent pointing out serious flaws in Kripal’s work, even though he is the former classmate of Kripal:

“Despite its undeniable importance, however, Kripal's work also bears some rather troubling problems. Perhaps the most pervasive of these is Kripal's tendency toward sensationalism and at times an almost journalistic delight in playing on the "sexy," "seedy," "scandalous," and shocking nature of his material (e.g., pp. 27 ff.). Indeed, with section headings such as "Cleaving the Bitch in Two," "The Tantric Latrine," "Ecstatic Diarrhea," and the "Pansomatic Orgasm,"….” (and much more)

“A second problem arises from Kripal's understanding of "Tantra" and his identification of Ramakrishna as a "Tantrika." First, Kripal seems to take "Tantra" to be an established category and a given fact: in so doing he ignores the fact that, as Andre Padoux and others have pointed out, the category of"Tantra" as a singular, unified, abstract entity is itself largely the construction of nineteenth-century British Orientalists. Ramakrishna and his disciples were themselves an important part of the way in which Tantra came to be defined in Western and Indian dis- course. Second, Kripal lapses all too often into a very popular misconception of Tantra as something "scandalous, seedy, sexy, and dangerous" (p. 32), which is defined primarily by the equation of eroticism and mysticism: "In asserting this basic relationship between the mystical and the sexual, I am . . proposing that Ramakrishna was a Tantrika" (p. 5). Sexuality is but one rather limited-and not necessarily the most important-element of the diverse texts and traditions we label collectively as "Tantra." “

“However, perhaps the most problematic aspect of Kripal's work is its lack of attention to social and historical context. Ironically, although he argues persua- sively for the need to ground Tantra in its lived circumstances, Kripal often falls into the problems identified by Ronald Inden (in Inden's Imagining India [Cam- bridge, Mass., 1990]) and other critics of Orientalism: he tends to reify a static, archetypal, and ahistorical "Hindu unconscious" or "Imaginal World”, which seems to transcend social and historical context.” (and much more) -Journal of Religion 78 (2): 318-320. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Second, the overall language of the article as it currently stands is weasely, for example declaring that those one word quotes are from ‘major’ academic religious journals, when both sides include references from similar journals. More relevant is ‘who’ said what. Third, the comment that Sil eventually approved of the book is referenced only by a vaguely worded, passing mention of Sil’s review, quoted in a non-RS website.

Fourth, since most of the Contemporary reception section is about psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna, there should be a subhead above that part titled “Psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna”.

Finally, I suggest that a more skilled writer, and someone with an academic background, rewrite the section. I do think my stepping aside will help to diffuse some of the contention (one-sided in my opinion). Below is the last version that I proposed on the talk page, before it was added to the article and then gutted, just in case another editor wants to see an alternate approach. Please note that this version gives roughly equal space to both camps, unlike the current version of the article:

In 1995, Jeffrey Kripal wrote Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, which he called a psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna. Kali's Child's primary thesis is that Ramakrishna's mystical experiences were generated by the lingering results of childhood traumas and sublimated homoerotic and pedophiliac passions. Kripal also alleged that the Ramakrishna Mission has suppressed biographical material relating to Ramakrishna's erotic life, a claim challenged by some religious figures. Kali's Child provoked controversy after religious scholar Narasingha Sil wrote an article in The Statesman questioning Kripal's scholarship. In subsequent articles, Kripal's translations, his conclusions, and his authority to apply psychoanalysis to Ramakrishna were questioned by several scholars, including Alan Roland, Huston Smith, and Somnath Bhattacharya. Other scholars found Kripal's arguments convincing. Kripal responded to the criticisms in journal articles and postings on his website, but stopped participating in the discussion in late 2002.

Adieu, ~ priyanath talk 04:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that your original paragraph seems more appropriate than what is there now. All these things (including the discussion of Roland's criticisms) should go at Kali's Child. Of course you put them here to offset what you saw as an unbalanced presentation. Well, do other editors have objections to the concise presentation written by Priyanath? I would support going back to that one, and moving the extended coverage to Kali's Child. Devadaru (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first there is the question of whether calling a book "plain shit" is accurately described as "questioning the book's scholarship". I'd say that's a rather genteel way of putting it. And then Sil reversed his position the next year, which is a relevant fact which brings his opinion into question. So I included the fact in the article. Priyanath's response is that it is not cited to a reliable source — it is cited to the same Somnath Bhattacharyya essay that Priyanth has been taking for gospel truth during this entire discussion!

Second, we are back to the old problem wherein Priyanath thinks that a description of the book should be balanced by criticism of it. In actuality, the book received both praise and criticism, and both sides should be represented, ideally giving a neutral description of the book's reception by the public and academia. Referring to religious studies scholars as "just former classmates and fellow club members" is patently absurd. — goethean ॐ 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Priyanath's original version is unbalanced. Here is the coverage of the criticism:

Kali's Child provoked controversy after religious scholar Narasingha Sil wrote an article in The Statesman questioning Kripal's scholarship. In subsequent articles, Kripal's translations, his conclusions, and his authority to apply psychoanalysis to Ramakrishna were questioned by several scholars, including Alan Roland, Huston Smith, and Somnath Bhattacharya.

Here is the praise:

Other scholars found Kripal's arguments convincing.

In the current version of the article, I changed that to:

Other scholars, writing in major academic religion journals, called Kripal's arguments "thorough", "well documented" and "convincing".

In response, I am told that I am misrepresenting the reception to the book. It seems that negative coverage can recieve plenty of room in the article, while the smallest positive thing must be carefully circumscribed and exactingly contextualized. And now we have somehow found room for an entire paragraph — one longer than the Kripal paragraph — about how psychoanalysis is being inappropriately applied to Hinduism. Who has gotten more attention in the world: Kripal, or Roland? In our article Roland gets more attention — and what little attention can be given to Kripal is dominated by the criticism. And still Priyanath claims that the article is too positive to Kripal. It seems that we haven't made much progress. — goethean ॐ 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, Sil did not "reverse his position". And if he did, then he must have reversed himself again, as he posted a comment to the Malhotra vs Kripal threads on Sulekha renewing his challenge to take on Kripal 1-on-1, in Bengali. I think Bhattacharya misread an ironical passage -- which could very well be the same as a passage in Sil's 1997 article ("Is Ramakrishna a Vedantin, a Tantrika or a Vaishnava? An examination", Asian Studies Review 1997). rudra (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"just former classmates and fellow club members", on the contrary, is quite relevant (Haberman and Parsons are also out of Chicago, like Urban), as is competence in Bengali, where clearly Radice and McLean would have to be preferred over the others. And, of course, the fact that the book got the AAR award long before the reviews. How exactly were any of the club supposed to trash the book after that? Urban and Larson spoke up (but didn't touch the Bengali, obviously), the rest caved. rudra (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To repeat myself yet a third time, if you don't have reliable sources to back up your editorial opinion, you are wasting everyone's time. None of this will be used in deciding what gets in the article and what is removed. — goethean ॐ 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Haberman and Parsons, in case you were wondering. Radice and Mclean. Sulekha is a banned site, sadly, though Sil's RISA-L post of May 1998 should have been enough to see that Bhattacharya was quite likely mistaken. As for 1996 (the award) preceding 1997/8 (the reviews)... *shrug* rudra (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

*shrug*

Indeed. — goethean ॐ 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian A. Hatcher. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about the early review by Openshaw (besides misspelling her name). Sorry. rudra (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I believe Sil's 1998 book has a discussion of the sources, including secondary material in works not focused on Ramakrishna. The primary biographical works, based on direct acquaintance, are four: first, Ramchandra Dutta's jivanavṛttānta, part of which was published even before RK's death (in 1885). Translations exist, but none that could be considered reliable, AFAIK. The second and third are intertwined: Mahendranath Gupta's 5 volumes of kathāmṛta taking many years to be published, and in the meantime, Swami Saradananda's "official" (from the POV of the RK Mission) biography, the lilāprasanga. Multiple translations exist for both. (There is a story that Saradananda was commissioned by Vivekananda because the latter considered Ramchandra's work "rot".) The fourth is Akshay Kumar Sen's śrīśrīrāmkṛṣṇa punthi, often discounted as it was written in verse with obvious hagiographical intent. rudra (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note: chronologically, Sen's punthi is the second, published in various parts during the 1890s.) rudra (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Kripal's account of how the kathamrta was written, in which M was running out of material and so he ended up putting the secret talk in volumes 4 and 5? — goethean ॐ 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The appendix (p.329-336)? I'm not sure that's what Kripal says. I read him to be saying that the secret talks are in the later volumes because M was reluctant to reveal them (i.e. deliberately passed over them while gathering material from his diaries for the early volumes). The argument that the secret talks are in the later volumes because M had run out of material doesn't strike me as cogent, because had he been reluctant, he could simply have not written those volumes at all. rudra (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the appendix, and I mis-remembered it in my comment above. Kripal says that M's "audacity" in what he revealed was progressively increasing in the later volumes. Kripal says on 332 that M was running out of material, but that only explains the shorter length of volume 5 and of the scenes in v. 5. — goethean ॐ 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

see here. What was Saradananda's real name? — goethean ॐ 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Saradananda's real name was Sarat Chandra Chakravarty. "Alasinga" I believe is Alasinga Perumal, one of Vivekananda's "householder" (i.e. lay person) friends in Madras. rudra (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

and here — goethean ॐ 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, don't have much time now to get into editing. … But why mention only a criticism (Sil's) of "My Master"? Of course "My Master" presents Vivekananda's personal interpretation of Ramakrishna. That goes without saying. Why trash the lecture by quoting Sil's nasty remarks? I don't think they belong. Anyone's biographical statement will naturally be coloured by his opinions, mine, Vivekananda's, Saradananda's, or anyone else. Devadaru (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether "My Master" is a source of accurate information on Ramakrishna. Sil says 'no'. If you have an opinion on this matter from a reliable source, please add it to the article. — goethean ॐ 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

Devadaru apparently wants the introduction to imply that SRK's sexuality was absolutely normal, and that it is only contemporary academics who find him a little odd. I have provided citations for the fact that scholars find his sexuality to be (at the very least) ambiguous. In order for Devdaru's version to return, you must cite a reliable source which explicitly argues that SRK's sexuality was unambiguous. By "explicitly", I mean that criticizing Kripal is not enough. You must cite a source which says something to the effect of: "SRK's sexuality was normal." If no reliable sources argue this, the intro should not assume that McLean, Sil, Kakar, Kripal, Hatcher, Radice, and Larson are all incompetant or liars.

Please note that my wording is extremely kind to the POV of the Ramakrishna Mission. In fact, most or all of these scholars do not find SRK's sexuality to be ambiguous, but rather to be unambiguously homosexual. But I have not chosen to put that fact into the introduction. — goethean ॐ 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Devadaru reverted my change with the following edit summary:

"Millions of Benalis reading Kathamrita for a century never found RK's sexuality ambiguous."

Since Devadaru provided no citation for this opinion, I have reverted his edit. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bengali quotation

I provided an untranslated Bengali quotation in a footote in the intro which was intended to show that it is not only contemporary scholars who see SRK's sexuality as ambiguous, but rather there is plenty of prima facie evidence in the primary sources. Rudrasharman has removed this quotation with the following edit summary: "rv out of context quote Undid revision 206779062 by Goethean". The problems with this are: (1) All quotations are inherently out of context. More context can be provided, but I don't think that it is needed to prove my point. (2) I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy against out-of-context quotations. — goethean ॐ 00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Such context as you'd be willing to accept is already there in footnote 24, where the main text has Hatcher's rendering (with an arguably critical omission of context that for consistency calls for snipping "sei avasthay", else someone knowing Bengali might ask "ki avasthay? kon avasthay?") in comparison with Nikhilananda's. As for the claim, you've referenced it; that's enough. rudra (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've now removed the untranslated portion from footnote 24, which makes the "scholarly" misrepresentation complete (as in supressio veri). But who cares? It's all verifiable! From reliable sources!! rudra (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your extremely sarcastic tone is not helpful. (FYI, if you look at my contributions, you will see that I have been involved in long battles with WP administration and have plenty of reason to be bitter as well.) I may have mangled Hatcher's text by only quoting a portion of his translation and his article's version of the Bengali text. I'll quote the entire passage from Hatcher in the footnote when possible to see if that resolves the issue. — goethean ॐ 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't mangled Hatcher's text, inasmuch as he was agreeing with Kripal. rudra (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As for bitterness, I think you've realized by now that the quality of translation issue is central. The Religious Studies establishment stonewalled on it. And I suppose it was just a coincidence that Kripal dropped the entire subject at the point where Tyagananda produced 191 items to answer. rudra (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've realized by now that the quality of translation issue is central

Is it? It doesn't seem so to me. Kripal may very well have made 191 translation errors and refused to admit it. His claims of childhood abuse may have grieviously over-stepped the textual evidence. He may have interpreted SRK's desi biography in contemporary American terms. But in my opinion, his basic, essential thesis regarding SRK's sexuality and mystical realization stands. It's not Kripal who has neglected to translate the basic source materials on SRK for the past 100 years; it is the Ramakrishna Mission. There's more to Tyagananda's essay than translation errors. There's a reason why a reader of Tyagananda's essay never finds out a single thing about the historical facts regarding SRK's sexuality — and it's not because it's beyond the scope of the article. It's the same reason why the RKM publishes book after book on Vedanta and Shankaracharya and the Upanishads rather than on SRK. — goethean ॐ 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is, because Kripal's "evidence" is entirely textual. Misread text equals bogus evidence. Bogus evidence, bogus case. Tyagananda disclaimed any competence in psychology, which is why he didn't offer an "alternative explanation", if that's what you think was expected of him. The RKM's remaking of RK into a (sexless?) Vedantin is Vivekananda's legacy, and a red herring here, although Kripal's conjuration of a paradoxical "homosexual Tantrika" is even more bizarre. Regarding the historical facts -- as opposed to question begging fantasies -- Kripal offers nothing that Isherwood didn't know. The conclusion is different because Isherwood, though a homosexual himself, wasn't into faddish combinations of psychoanalysis (or more accurately, "freudianizing" as the RISA folks call it), New Age Tantra (disastrous as Kripal's Bengali is, his Sanskrit is nonexistent), queer theory, and whatever else by way of theorrhea tickles the synapses of the Religious Studies establishment these days. In the highest tradition of epigones, Kripal produced "good reading" for his peers, the only ones who count in his world view; it didn't matter in the least that it was nonsense to anyone with a clue. rudra (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Contemporary literary theory is reprehensible bullshit, but the fact that the RKM systematically suppresses any actual information relating to the biography of their ostensible guru is totally fine. That makes sense, especially considering your admiration for the Hindutvan demagogue Rajiv Malhotra. Any BS excuses the actions of the RKM, and you assume that any attack that the swamis mount against American academics is valid. I understand. — goethean ॐ 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, “the RKM systematically suppresses any actual information relating to the biography of their ostensible guru” seems to overstate the case a bit. It has been mentioned numerous times before, that the mission publishes unexpurgated versions of Kathamrita, Punthi, Jivanvrttanta, and Lilaprasanga in Bengali. "Systematically supresses"? Hmmm... It sounds almost as if it's some kind of "evil empire"! But I am impressed by the nobility of character, dedication to truth and honesty, and other fine character traits of the members I know personally. Devadaru (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, of course it's an evil empire! Those devious geniuses in the RKM are fully aware that millions of Bengalis for the past century couldn't read their native language to save their lives, and still can't, not if the RKM can help it, by gum! It has taken the heroic and glorious efforts of Jeffrey Kripal and Brian Hatcher to expose this vast conspiracy and to deliver those poor Bengalis from their benighted ignorance and stupidity. rudra (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an evil empire, just a bunch of liars. — goethean ॐ 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, telling stories. Jeffrey Kripal should know, eh? rudra (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, It seems to me that the level of discourse here is crossing a line of civility, and I apologize for my part in that. Obviously we are coming from very very different standpoints. Though I don't accept Kripal's conclusions, I accept the right of others to do so. I trust others accept my right, which is informed by thought, study, and some knowledge of Bengali, to reject Kripal's conclusions.

Is it possible to completely master the sex-drive? I believe it is, and I have personally met people (a very few, I admit) whom I feel have been able to do so. I take Ramakrishna to be one such person. This belief supports my position on Kripal et al. If one holds such mastery to be impossible, which is a legitimate position to hold, no doubt, one might more readily accept Kripal's conclusions. Anyhow, that's a bit of personal explanation. Devadaru (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's always useful to hear the Swamis' spin on these matters. — goethean ॐ 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon sir. But what I wrote above is not "the Swamis' spin" but one man's personal view. Best wishes, I'm going to be on break (and away from computers) till mid June at least. — Devadaru (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity that Evam carried only the essay part of Tyagananda's brief (presumably to be consistent with the original debate in the Harvard Divinity bulletin, if not also for reasons of space). Leaving the detailed commentary (the 191 items) "unpublished" has allowed the RS establishment to ignore it. Kripal's corrections in the second edition (long before Tyagananda's critique) were few and cosmetic; but in a way one has to admire his chutzpah in insisting, for example, that "cocked hips" was a correct translation of tribhanga. The RS establishment allowing gross distortions like this to pass with nary a comment really shows how worthless they are as academics and "scholars". rudra (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Translation of Hatcher text

For completeness, my (unscholarly, unverifiable, unreliable, etc) take on these translations. (See also Tyagananda's notes 55 and 141.) The verbal construction "nā kar'le thākte pārtām nā", involving a double negation and two infinitive forms, is by no means simple. In terms of verbal roots, kar="do", thak="stay" and par="be able". So na kar'le="without doing" in the sense of "without having to do" and thakte partam na="couldn't have stayed". The issue, thus, is why RK literally "couldn't have stayed without doing [whatever]". In Kripal's book (p.161), Kripal provides his own initial take on the context by scare-quoting "forced". In other words, in the original Bengali passage (about the rituals arranged by the Bhairavi), there is an implication that RK was a reluctant participant, only that Kripal doesn't believe it which is why he uses "forced" in quotes, to suggest that RK really wasn't reluctant. But what if he was? Then the translated passage means that he had to do whatever in order to remain (and perhaps learn more from the Bhairavi). There is an enormous amount of interpretive uncertainty that has been lost. rudra (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, to be fair, Hatcher's rendering of this as "couldn't resist", generally agreeing with Kripal, isn't outlandish, in that they're reading RK's statement as an emphatic affirmation (which, in theory, would be a matter of tone in the delivery, as double negations of this type can be used to that effect idiomatically, i.e. a form of litotes). However, there is a subtlety. For the affirmative tone, it would have been idiomatically more correct for RK to have said "nā kare thākte pārtām nā" (literally "couldn't have stayed without doing" in the sense of "without having done"). The difference between na kar'le and na kare is the degree of volition connoted. I would suggest presenting both verbal phrases (the actual and the alternative) to Bengalis you know. rudra (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Final note, on sei avasthay. Hatcher translates this as "In that condition", which is not wrong, but arguably inaccurate. Better is "in that situation", i.e "under those circumstances". The difference has to do with whether "avastha" refers principally to RK's internal/personal state (which is how Hatcher and Kripal take it) or to the context (having to learn those rituals from the Bhairavi). rudra (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urban misquoted Sil's review?!

In this anonymous edit, someone is claiming that Hugh Urban misquoted (or mistranslated?)Sil's review. I am going to revert the anonymous edit, because the previous version is cited to a reliable source, but I would obviously prefer to have an accurate version. Does anyone have a copy of the review? Was it in English? — goethean ॐ 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was in English. I've had trouble acquiring it though. For instance, would you believe that the microforms for 1st quarter 1997 are "missing" at the New York Public Library? rudra (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

would you believe...

Yes. What I still can't believe, however, is that the only scholarly translation of the Kathamrta is a dissertation that is going to cost me a bundle of cash to acquire. And that the Jivanavrttant is untranslated. That boggles my mind. I feel like Tom Hanks in The Da Vinci Code. — goethean ॐ 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be cheaper to learn Bengali instead.:-) (The one in the Teach Yourself series is by Radice, btw. And as languages go, the regularity of the grammar is above average. The really tough part is pronunciation.) I'd say the Jivanavrttanta not being translated is in some measure due to its bad odor in RKM circles, official disapproval goes a long way. But the same can't be said for Satyacharan Mitra's book and AFAIK that isn't translated either. In all, general lack of interest, I'd say. rudra (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And as far as books on SRK go, if you want to avoid Sil and Kripal, and remain scholarly, your choices are: nil? — goethean ॐ 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. How useful are Isherwood or Rolland or Max Mueller? (Or Olson?) I don't think the Rolland-Freud correspondence would count for much, as neither of them had seen RK personally. The language barrier is real. rudra (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Statesman review we're discussing now? I might be able to get my hands on it. Its in English, of course. (The mast head used to read till fairly recently: 'The Statesman, into which is incorporated The Friend of India est.1804', and then a coat of arms with elephants. All very Raj.) --Relata refero (disp.) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Statesman review we're discussing now?

Yes. — goethean ॐ 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And British-owned (and edited) into the 60s. But its glory days are past. The Statesman is in bad shape, eaten alive by the competition, cut down to a precarious existence in Kolkata. The days of the Delhi branch office preeminence (Kuldip Nayar et al) are long gone, shut down, buildings sold. I don't know if they even publish a mofussil edition any more. Sad. Their morgue must be priceless. rudra (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kathamrita translation, forthcoming scholarship

Did you see this link? I had posted it earlier above as well. A complete translation of Kathamrita, in original format (that is, volume by volume, not chronologically) that claims to be "word for word". US$60. Devadaru (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw it. Four of the five reviewers are swamis. The swamis have proven themselves to be perfectly disinformative on the subject of SRK. Thanks, but since one exists, I'd rather spend my money on a scholarly version. — goethean ॐ 04:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is some Western scholarship coming in relation to Ramakrishna that has nothing to do with any kind of perceived "ambiguous sexuality", like Jeffrey Long's—see this blog, or Amazon.com Devadaru (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether SRK's sexuality was ambiguous is not in question. Every single scholar — McLean, Larson, Radice, Roy, Urban, Hawley, Hatcher, Kakar, Sarkar, Sil, Kripal — agree that there was something odd about SRK's sexuality. And Bhattacharyya and Tyagnananda conveniently decline to comment on the subject. You can believe whatever you want, but until new reliable sources to the contrary are brought forth, the question is closed. — goethean ॐ 04:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Something odd" actually applies to practically everything about him. He could have been clinically insane -- from childhood in fact. rudra (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sil categorically calls RK heterosexual, counters Kripal's claims of homosexuality. So not all these guys are in agreement.121.247.58.30 (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roland

Too much in the last section. Please cut down on it, particularly the bits published by Sulekha. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Roland material is only tangentially related to Ramakrishna and should be cut back. But none of it is referenced to Sulekha. — goethean ॐ 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's a conference paper that was subsequently posted on Sulekha and reprinted in their little guide to egg-throwing. Interesting:

Concerning my own personal experience, after encountering the writings of Swami Vivekananda at nineteen, I spent the next three and a half years in the early 1950s immersed in Indian philosophy, with Antioch College work periods at centers and ashrams of the Ramakrishna Order; at a Press run by Theosophists who published the weekly, Manas; and at a mountain retreat of Meher Baba, a Sufi, in the Ojai Valley. While on campus, I studied with an Indian professor, M. N. Chatterjee, who was a practicing Vedantist.

I would think that's pretty relevant. Sigh. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find that? I found it. — goethean ॐ 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invading the Sacred as source

Per Relata refero's suggestion above, does Invading the Sacred qualify as a reliable source? Has it been reviewed in a noteworthy publication? If so, Amazon doesn't seem to know about it. Amazon quotes several reviews but not the publications in which they were published. Four of our footnotes (68, 69, 77, 80) are derived from this source. — goethean ॐ 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Antonio de Nicolas is definitely notable, and religion is his field. Three of the footnotes are to Roland, who is also notable. The other one is to Somnath Bhattacharyya. His professional qualifications aren't in doubt, but he has had no impact as an academic. (The real problem, though, is that his Infinity Foundation essay isn't really reproduced in the book; instead it's a very close textual commentary on that essay -- more a paraphrase, actually -- by Yvette Rosser, which winds up quoting about 90% of the essay anyway. That's iffy. But all this is more relevant to Kali's Child.) Does any of this matter? I don't know. The book was published in India, and reviewed in some Indian newspapers. Publicity in the West has been zero, as is normal for anything from India not suitable for genteel left-liberal literary tastes in the West. Considering its contents, the RS establishment will give it a wide berth (much too emic for their etic sensibilities), so no reviews are likely to be seen in the usual round of journals either. So, if someone wants to wikilawyer the issue, the book could be "unreliabled" away, I think. I predict that outcome if the issue were posted to WP:RS/N (just one "Hindutva!" smear will be enough to sink it.) rudra (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was reviewed in Indian newspapers, it ashould be ok. I still wonder why Amazon doesn't quote these reviews, however. Maybe they weren't enthusiastic enough. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen a review from an Indian newspaper on Amazon. Though that would be odd: Times of India, Indian Express, The Hindu and perhaps some others aren't unknown. rudra (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's even stranger when you consider that its not Amazon which is doing the research. Presumably, publishers give Amazon the blurbs along with the book specs. Maybe Amazon doesn't accept blurbs from foreign newspapers because they are afraid that publishers could just make stuff up, and Amazon can't check them. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Rupa Press dropped the ball, then. Meanwhile, the book has a website with a "News and Media" page. rudra (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vivekananda's letters

Does anyone have any idea if the ellipses in this letter are in the original, or if text has been removed? — goethean ॐ 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, it's those blasted framesets again, nasty critters. If you can untangle the real URL, that would be good, but it could be easier just to give the relevant navigation. rudra (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Volume 5 -> Epistles - First Series -> XXII Alasinga — goethean ॐ 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Browsing through a few letters, I think the ellipses correspond to removed text. rudra (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the work of those industrious swamis again, with their "nobility of character, dedication to truth and honesty, and other fine character traits." And this in the so-called Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Can they publish anything without butchering it? — goethean ॐ 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section

I strongly disagree with the statement regarding the ambiguous sexuality of Sriramakrishna Paramhansadev. People who are trying to ruin His world wide acceptance as the pioneer of harmonious blending of all religions, the God of universal love, for them I would like to say Father forgive them they not know what they are saying. May God enlighten these people !! who doubts on the sexuality of universal love becuase in one word Sriramakrishna is love personified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.188.35 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Key policies and guidelines. — goethean ॐ 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)