Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

1 Sensuality
2 NPOV Dispute...
3 Erotic Passions & the Quest for the Divine
4 Protest Kali's Child
5 Avatarvaad
6 Response new thread
7 New addtion
8 References
9 Small NPOV line
10 monograph by Swami Tyagananda
11 Please review for appropriateness
12 Ramakrishna's Name

Sensuality

so sensuality is avidyamaya and love is vidyamaya . . . where does sex fall?

That's so simplistic as to miss the point. Sex if it is governed within a dharmic life is fine. Hinduism hails samsara (in the context of a career and married life) as a vital and important aspect of humanity. If one loses control of it and sex/sensuality (kama) becomes the end unto itself, one is being steeped in illusory (maya) ignorance (avidya). As for love, it has many forms. It's not just one thing, as you should know. Vidyamaya is also not complete enlightenment. It is still illusion. Until one is undifferentiated enlightenment, there is always an essence of ignorance. Not that this is bad. The world is fine, but one should be aware of oneself, one's actions.

Shri Ramakrishna once explicated the difference between maya and daya (compassion). Maya is attachment ('love') for one's family and friends, one's own little social circle. Daya, compassion, is love for all people, beings, animals, in the world. Those who are enlightened, like the Buddha or Swami Vivekananda, knew love and were love. I recommend you find (on the internet or whatever) a book called "The Gospel of Shri Ramakrishna" (in Bengali Shri Ramakrishna Charitamrit). It explains his view of Hinduism perfectly.--LordSuryaofShropshire 23:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

>"so sensuality is avidyamaya and love is vidyamaya . . . where does sex fall?"

Ramakrishna implied that all things, good and bad, were maya (illusion). According to him, both love and hate, materialism and spirituality, egotism and generosity exist only due to our limited perception of Reality. However, he divided them in illusions that bind us further (avidyamaya) and illusions that take us further on the dispelling of maya itself (vidyamaya).

Sensuality here means that which is perceived by our five senses. As one cannot trust one's eyes before a trained magician, also our human five senses draw and drag us further to illusions and false conclusions, whereas the embracing and realization of some concepts that are not sensual (i.e., "of the senses"), such as love, generosity, spirituality, all of them "vidyamaya", take us further away from sticking to what we see, touch, smell, hear, taste.

In Ramakrishna's view, one does not have to close the eyes before the magician or to run from sex. But in both cases, man's senses do not account for the most important things happening there.

the link to the Japanese version of this does not seem to be linking...... whomever knows how to fix it should. -gren

NPOV Dispute...

Reading this entry in our wikipedia I am struck by the extreme single-sidedness of it as an introduction to Ramakrishna and his legacy. He is blatantly called "a man of God" and his impact on the world is judged to be "tremendous"... It makes me suspect that it is written by the Ramakrishna Mission...

The article continues in a devotional mode in which Ramakrishna is said to have experienced "nirvikalpa samadhi (absorption in the all-encompassing Consciousness)" which is it is then said "gave Ramakrishna an understanding of the two sides of maya (illusion)"... This may be true, but it is debatable and rational, reasonable persons could and do disagree with the implicit world-view expressed by the article as it stands.

We should strive for a NPOV stance in our articles. I know that there is a controversial discussion of Ramakrishna, his spirituality and his legacy going on and I want it to be represented in the article in the proper, agreed upon manner... But I do not want to be "flamed" and become involved in an "edit war" when/if I add information and links about it... Fair warning, no?Emyth 22:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Emyth,

I dont think the article is 'extremely' single sided. But there is lot of scope for improvement. The impact of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda on the renaissance that followed in Bengal has been tremendous - acknowledged by Subhas Bose, S. Radhakrishnan, Rajagopalachari etc. The mission runs around 600 educational institutions and has not been affected by any controversies. Vivekananda is treated as the face of modern day Hinduism by most of the sects of Hinduism.

The experience of Samadhi etc. themselves warrant separate articles and all mystics - most recently Ramana Maharshi - have tried to explain about what happens when one attains samadhi. They say that our language system as it exists is based on the perception of the world through our 5 sense organs and is incapable of fully describing super-conscious states such as samadhi. I would appreciate if somebody starts a wikistub on samadhi.

Every great character such as the Christ, Muhammad etc. have been made controversial by scholars. Relavent sections on them in wikipedia do not include those details, though ! I am not telling that there should not be NPOV stance. But let us judge for ourselves what the scholars really say and how sincere they are, else there will be "edit wars". What few "scholars" opine, should not become basis for controversy. The Britannica had a section on Sri Ramakrishna and only reference book it suggested was "Kali's child"- not including even Kathamrita, Lilaprasanga etc. That is certainly not NPOV :)

Last, i did study in Ramakrishna mission school and your fair warning has been noticed ! Ramashray 14:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for Ramakrishna is unabashed hagiography. For a full and clear discussion of the issues regarding Ramakrishna's sexuality, please see: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/ jodyrrr Mar 8, 2005

Yes, this is some of the material I knew was out there; thank you for the reference. (I hope that anyone who joins this discussion will sign their contributions so we can keep this civil. I am really put off by the tone, the ad hominum attacks etc. that characterize that dispute. I hope we can rise above that here.) At this point I am working on a response to Ramashray's comments. If one actually goes to the articles on the characters he mentions, one will find a difference in their treatment that we would do well to follow here; e.g. There are artilces about Jesus as well as Christ. And they are scholarly and encyclopedic. Controversy is not swept under the rug or erased; it is right there out front and dealt with in as NPOV as possible. If we work harder, then this article can rise to wikipedia standards. If one wants to read a treatment of Ramakrishna as a "saint" then there will be links to the Ramakrishna Mission site... One will also be able to follow links to the scholarly "opinion" that devotees may find offensive, even blasphemous, as well. That is what NPOV means, no? Emyth 19:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Emyth,

Pls dont waste your time in preparing a response to my comments. Its not necessary. Whatever your response be on Ramakrishna, it will be based on Jeffry Kripal's work. The author neither knows how to read nor how to write in Bengali. The mission, monastic order and Ramakrishna-Vivekananda are held in very high esteem in India and even people from other 'faiths' such as dwaita, vishistadwaita etc. look upon Ramakrishna with great reverence. In fact, before Kripal's work, the sources which he uses such as Kathamrita and Leelaprasanga have been read by millions in India (both scholars and lay people) and such interpretations as Kripal makes occurred to nobody.

So before commenting on anybody who belongs to 'other' culture, it is necessary to understand their culture.

I would like to point out several scholarly articles and the user comments which have appeared in this connection at

columnists such as Rajeev Srinivasan (address at IITM alumni), S. N. Balagangadhara (India and her traditions), Sankrant Sanu, Rajeev Malhotra etc. have written extensively on the same. Please read them once. Just for the sake of making an article 'imapartial' we should not be putting what every other person says, right ?

As regarding Jodyrr's link - it is difficult to get full and clear discussion as most of the Indians, who are spiritually oriented and are authority on the lives of Gurus dont have internet access !!

Ramashray 05:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rajeev Malhotra's critique of Kali's Child is refuted here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/tantrictruth.html

Swami Tyagananda's is answered here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/textuality.html

jodyrrr Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:10PM MST

I'm a Vedantist, and I have to admit that while the article certainly expresses some of my feelings and beliefs, it is far from neutral.

Also, I'm wowed that there is no reference to Sarada Devi, who does have her own article. 23:39, Apr 28, 2005 User:70.33.35.194

NPOV Dispute RESOLVED? - After 2+ months of work, I suggest that we have an article that is well on its way to being NPOV and encyclopedic. As the person who invoked the NPOV Dispute in the first place, I am tentatively suggesting that we might consider removing it. Not that our task is finished; there is more work to do; but if you, Ramashray, agree that what we have is a disinterested, neutral review of the facts and NOT a slanderous jeremiad against your guru, then I feel that we can move on. Are we agreed? Or have I entirely misread the situation....Let me know...Thanks. Emyth 11:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dear all,

May i request the members to consider Draft/Sri Ramakrishna, article insted of the present one ? The article contains the previous contributions of members, includes more details on Sri Sarada Devi, also link to Kali's child !! As an Indian and one associated with Ramakrishna mission, i find the article more informative and encyclopidic. The previous article has something about vidyamaya and avidyama etc. which were not very clearly put in... I must also thank User: Swami Vimokshananda for this article.

What say others ??

Ramashray 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Ramashray, I am a follower of Ramakrishna, but the article at Draft/Sri Ramakrishna in its current form is not acceptable for a neutral encyclopedia. I believe that the Ramakrishna Kathamrita is factual. But most people in the wider world do not. Just as the Jesus article must present the views and evidence both of Jesus' followers and of unbelievers, so must this article for Ramakrishna. I believe that most of the text in that article could be merged with the present article, but it must be done in an encyclopedic, neutral way. I would be happy to try to help you do that.

But before we do that, what problems do you have with the present article that prevent us from removing the POV tag from it? --goethean 16:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Goethean,

I have no objection in removing the POV tag. But i could not clearly understand why the tag was put in first place and what great change has been done to the article (except putting Kali's child article, for which i have no objection. But mere addition of such an article makes it netural ??). I request Emyth to remove the tag. Also consider merging the contents of draft with present article. I would like to see the present article to include materials which would then can become aids for "Indain renaissance" and "Bhakthi movement". goetheancould you help pls Ramashray 05:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ramashray, the differences between POV text and NPOV text can seem subtle. For example:

Ramakrishna often experienced the divine presence.

and:

Mahendranath Gupta wrote that Ramakrishna often experienced a divine presence.

The first is unacceptable to Wikipedia because it implies that the divine exists, and that Ramakrishna experienced it. The second statement merely describes what M wrote. It implies nothing about god or divinity. These subtle differences are extremely important to Wikipedia.

There is very little, if anything, that is not allowed on Wikipedia. But all text must be written from a neutral point of view. We can describe some of what the Kathamrita says, but we must not claim that it is true for all people. When your information is presented neutrally, your information can reach people whose points of view are very different than that of your own.

Maybe some of the information at Draft/Ramakrishna should go to an article on Ramakrishna Kathramrita. How would you feel about that? --goethean 16:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing NPOV tag. Article Ramakrishna Kathamrita may not be necessary; insted this article itself may be made to netural. Ramashray 04:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

hi folks, the present article is below par, I'm afraid. The Draft/Ramakrishna isn't good, either. The draft looks like a copied text from a usual Ramakrishna Paramahamsa book that we get from Ramakrishna Mission. Someone has to take up the task of presenting more *facts* about this great soul and write it in an order that makes sense. The present article didn't make much sense to me when I read it. Having read a lot about Sri RKM, I believe that the article doesn't do justice in telling what it should, to those who're reading about him for the first time. Look at the article from a "reading for the first time about him" perspective. Beside that, the article needs to be categorised and made more encyclopedic.

Also, the statements like "Ramakrishna often experienced the divine presence" should be avoided. That is truly a POV.

Erotic Passions & the Quest for the Divine

As an ardent 'fan' of Vivekananda and through him of of his spiritual guide, the Paramhansa, though not necessarily in agreement with everyone in the Ramakrishna Mission, that he created, I would like to add both both of them were emphatic on the need to question every edict that is handed down to us.

I believe, I am convinced, that both of them were in touch with the Divine and I am not bothered too much by the homoeroticsm that Kirpal talks about. With or without it both Vivekananda and Ramkrishna achieved a level of awareness of the infinite that we can only aspire to.

Having said that, it is also true, that erotic passion of the right brain kind is a phenomenon that is similar to intuition, insight and enlightenment so it is not unlikely that passions, erotic or otherwise, could have played a part in the realisation of the grand vision.

Unfortunately, the 'relegious' community has unilaterally come to the conclusion that spiritual enlightenment is incompatible with sexual activity. Whether it is the Catholic Church crossing swords with the Da Vinci Code over Mary Magdalene or the Ramakrishna Mission that is hypersensitive to references of homoeroticism in their leader ... we are always being told that the Divine do not need sex.

However there are enough images of Kali-on-Shiva to challenge, if not ridicule, this juvenile stubborness 203.145.156.130

Swami Ashokananda says that "sex" is an activity performed at the body level, and those who perform it associate 'themselves' with their bodies more and more. One who has realised that he/she is "spirit", the atman, cannot indulge in such an act - after the realisation. That much is the reason for people not accepting the allegations that the realised souls can have sex or for that matter that they care for their body.

The images of Kali-on-shiva you are referring to had to do with Tantriks. Hence i dont know if such images can challenge the vedantists.

One more thing to be noted is, Ramakrishna's teaching centred around realisation of God for which he saw - Kamini, kanchan -"lust and greed" as the main obstacle. Now on that person, if you make allegations on those front, it will surely be challenged.

Ramashray

Protest Kali's Child

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avatarvaad

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

Response new thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New addtion

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

Small NPOV line

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

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

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

monograph by Swami Tyagananda

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

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

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

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

Buddhipriya 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review for appropriateness

I have removed some material that seems rather strange: [2]. It is unclear what specific significance that quote has. The controversy surrounding the Kripal work is already covered in the article. I am not clear what point the material is trying to make. Since I generally follow a one-revert rule, I will ask other editors to look this over and if it is restored, they will need to make a judgement. Buddhipriya 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ramakrishna's Name

Re: "He adopted a name that is clearly Vaishnavite (Rama and Krishna are both incarnations of Vishnu)": Swami Prabhananda has convincingly argued that the name Ramakrishna was given by Ramakrishna's father. So the name would be "given" rather than adopted. Sw.my 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives