Talk:Self-realization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Spirituality Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Spirituality. This project provides a central approach to spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Intro section replicates a different site

Much of this section is essentially a copy of the page found here. There is no specific copyright elements reserved, but there is no indication that the site is under GDFL or other license. Has permission been granted to copy? --Nemonoman 16:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Article should be deleted... no new content as compared to Self-Realisation article. Sfacets 03:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should still be mostly deleted, seems like spam for a few minor groups. --Simon D M (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Jnana is a major term in tibetan buddhism. Give me some time to rewrite this to include that aspect. i've just started to collect citations for use. but it's such a major term in buddhism, long term there will definitely need to be an article about it. minus the spam links... - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

wait, what's going on. this talk page is for a redirect to jnana. how are people getting here? discussion should be moved to Talk:Jnana - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

oh sorry, didn't realize that you just redirected as a way of deleting the page. and i was referring to the resulting redirect content. got confused. shouldn't this enter the standard AfD process instead? Or you're making an argument for speedy deletion (by redirect)? - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging or Deleting

I suggest we move subsections to their respective main articles. Then either turn this article into only a disambiguation page, similar to the enlightenment article or then delete it. Thoughts? - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Been one week so far, anyone have an opinion on this? If not in another week or so I'll just make the changes. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Last chance, anyone care at all about this article? - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be made into an article someday, but now it's just a collection of 'According to's. I think you're on the right track - merge, dab, and leave the first sentence. The term is notable enough to not delete the page entirely, imo, and has different connotation from similar terms like enlightenment. I saw your note at Talk:Paramahansa Yogananda - the content (one quote) from here is already in that article. ~ priyanath talk 19:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for adding your input on this. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the content can go to the respective pages, maybe to the talk pages for people to add in if they see fit. The Sahaja Yoga section doesn't add anything to the main article so I'll delete it now. I'll delete the Yogananda material as well if it is duplicated. I previously redirected the page, because the only meat on this page is also on the jnana page. This page would be worth keeping if there was other content related to 'self realisation' but not necessarily jnana, and I expect it would be mainly modern, although, in philosophical circles, the term was used as far back as 1874 according to OED online:

"1874 W. WALLACE Logic of Hegel xxi. p. clx, This process..may be called self-realisation (or development). 1876 F. H. BRADLEY Eth. Studies ii. 59 What remains is to point out the most general expression for the end in itself, the ultimate practical ‘why’; and that we find in the word self-realization. Ibid. 75 There is self-realization in all action. 1907 ILLINGWORTH Doctr. Trin. xii. 245 This realisation for which the Christian looks, while it is the realization of himself, is not self-realisation. For..it is not in the last resort his own achievement, but the gift of God." --Simon D M (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All the pages you have provided have nothing to do with the concept of self realization... groups especially have their own version of self realization, which is in absolute contrast to what is stated in this page, for example, in case of Sahaja Yoga their self realization is achieved when they feel cool breeze, in their head... merger will create more and more confusion. --talk-to-me! (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, each group has their own view of the term self-realization. Therefore, I'm proposing we move each traditions view of the term into their respective articles instead of trying to provide a comprehensive survey here. Right now it's not comprehensive and therefore not neutral. Later if someone really has the ability and inclination to research a neutral comparison of the use across all traditions that's still possible later- Owlmonkey (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Many translations of the Gita include the term 'self-realisation',[1][2][3] so it is certainly a widely used, notable term with more universal (non-sectarian) use. ~ priyanath talk 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to propose we keep the article as a disambiguation - because it does have wide usage at least in some traditions - and have it link to the traditions that use it instead of trying to create a list of usages here. Just a list adds no value, and takes the views out of the context of their tradition. Better that the topic is discussed within the context of each tradition's main article. This is similar to the enlightenment article, a term similar to this one. If there was a scholarly body of work comparing and contrasting the use of this term across multiple traditions then this article could add value by going into those comparisons. I don't know of any work like that though. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the enlightenment model works best here, until someone writes (with reliable sources) a general article on self-realization as a term, it's evolution, and the comparisons you mention. ~ priyanath talk 23:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Change

OK, how about the following as a disambiguation page for this article then:

Self-realization may refer to:

• A translation of the Sanskrit term Atma Jnana, alternatively rendered "knowledge of the soul",^[1] and used in various spiritual teachings:
  • In the Dada Bhagwan tradition
  • In the Paramhansa Yogananda tradition
  • In the Sahaja Yoga religious movement
  • In the Surat Shabd Yoga tradition
• A way to describe approaches in psychology
  • Psychosynthesis
• See Also
  • Moksha
  • Mysticism
  • Nondualism

Comments? - Owlmonkey (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga is a new religious movement rather than a tradition. You might want to link to Psychosynthesis that also uses the term and to Self-actualization which has a similar meaning. I still think the list is somewhat arbitrary. There are also a number of redirects like Self-Realization, Self-realisation, etc to deal with. --Simon D M (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Excellent additional links. Perhaps Psychosynthesis could begin a new subsection like As a way to describe approaches in psychology or do you think that is too narrow? - Owlmonkey (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Most eastern teachings use the term with the traditional meaning which I've referenced above - realization or knowledge of the soul. The more psychological 'self-actualization' or 'psychosynthesis' are significantly different, and are western derivatives with a different meaning. I suggest changing the heading 'As a way to describe.....' to the more accurate "Self-Realization according to various teachings". It's more neutral, and covers a wide range of everything from 'traditions' to 'religions' to 'new religious movements'. A simple disambiguation page doesn't need to get into defining whether something is a religion, sect, tradition, heresy, etc. The list simply needs to include notable teachings that have 'self-realization' as a notable aspect of their teaching. ~ priyanath talk 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not tied to the As a way to describe enlightenment or spiritual attainment: text but it's an attempt to complete the lead sentence Self-realization may refer to: and contrast it from the first bullet A translation of.... Is there a way we could reword according to various teachings so that it completes the sentence Self-realization may refer to...? I think that's where the a way to describe came from for me; a syntactic need to categorize the usage. How about A term used in spirituality? - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see, you're right. I've taken another stab at it, because the various traditions in that first list use 'self-realization' in the sense of ātmajñāna, whereas psychology uses it in a somewhat different sense. So I've made those traditions a subset of the sanskrit definition. I'll be away for a couple of days, but I think this is on the right track and you know what you're doing. If you want to tweak it some more and then go live with it, please do.

An additional minor note: the first sentence says 'a translation of the Sanskrit term Atma Jnana', but the wikilinks go to two different Sanskrit terms, 'Atma' and 'Jnana'. I think it would be more accurate to say 'a translation of the Sanskrit term ātmajñāna' with no wikilink(s), and have Atma and Jnana under 'See Also'. Monier-Williams is definite that the term is ātmajñāna, all one word. ~ priyanath talk 03:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Writing 2 words or 1 is just a matter of style, when writing sanskrit words are always run together. I agree that the 'self-realization' of Pscychosynthesis is not atmajnana, but I would say that these 2 streams of use probably overlap in many new age uses. The variation probably just comes from the varying understandings of 'self'. Even where self-realization does mean atmajnana, there is a wide variety in interpretation. For the Sahaja Yogis simply feeling a cool sensation in one's hand is taken to be Self-Realization. For them and the Radha Soamis and the Dada Bhagwan people, Self-Realization is just a step on the way to final release, while for others it is final release. --Simon D M (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on rendering it one word or two, but if it were rendered as one I would expect a separate article for that singular term. It seems the Jnana article is currently attempting to encompass the usage though it doesn't explain how atman figures into it that well. It could use some help there. My preference then would be two terms so each article and related meaning is linked to. So then it more matches the wikipedia structure than the original sanskrit perhaps but is better wikilinked. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the context of Vedanta, atmajnana and jnana are usually synonymous, I'd just link there. If the jnana article ever had subsections, I guess it should point to the relevant subsection. I think there's also an issue of undue weight with the inclusion of Dada Bhagwan, the WP article doesn't have any sources other than the self-published promotional material. --Simon D M (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the sects to weigh them really, but it sounds like you're saying that the article is currently questionable. I'm fine not linking to it unless others object. I think we can use consensus to decide on individual links. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I found an RS on Dada Bhagwan and added it to the talk page, so maybe it is notable enough to include. There's still an issue with undue weight and the groups included though. Perhaps we can just hope that it will be fixed with time. --Simon D M (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, going ahead with the change now. - Owlmonkey (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm really happy with the way it's turned out. Thank you all for your ideas, contributions and support. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)