Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 1

message: From an early paragraph of the current version of the article
In a flood of spiritual awareness he realized he was spirit, not his body.
I am no expert, but this sounds a bit misleading for an Advaita practicioner such as Ramana Maharishi.  Makes him look like some reincarnationist. Luis Dantas 02:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted GA 

message: As previously stated, the existing biography is very poor, does not address much of his life after his early experience, and contains a number of factual errors, critical ommissions, and misleading inferrences about one of the most respected and influential non-dualist spiritual figures of the modern era along with Sri Nisargadatta, and whose reputation of enlightenment remaines untarnished by egotism, scandal or hypocrisy. Thus we should get this particular biography right, and so this is what I propose to correct this, once I more adequately document some of the sources: 
Sri Ramana was the second of four children of Sundaram Iyer and Azhahammal, and named Venkataraman at birth. He was born in a village called Tiruchuzhi near Madurai in Tamil Nadu, South India. Venkataraman's father was a lawyer who died when he was twelve, so he moved to his uncle's house in Madurai, where he briefly attended the American Mission High School. 
At the age of sixteen, as he reported later, he had heard somebody mention the word "Arunachala." Although he didn't know what the word meant, he became greatly excited. Arunachala is a hill that is considered as being "holy" by Hindus, and that is associated with the Hindu deity of Shiva. At about the same time, Sri Ramana later reported, he had come across a copy of "Sekkilar's Periyapuranam", a book that describes the lives of Shaivite saints, and became fascinated by it. 
Soon after, in mid-July 1896, while still in his sixteen year, the future Sri Ramana he had a life changing experience. As Sri Ramana reported it later: "It was in 1896, about 6 weeks before I left Madurai for good (to go to Tiruvannamalai - Arunachala) that this great change in my life took place. I was sitting alone in a room on the first floor of my uncle's house. I seldom had any sickness and on that day there was nothing wrong with my health, but a sudden violent fear of death overtook me. There was nothing in my state of health to account for it nor was there any urge in me to find out whether there was any account for the fear. I just felt I was going to die and began thinking what to do about it. It did not occur to me to consult a doctor or any elders or friends. I felt I had to solve the problem myself then and there. 
The shock of the fear of death drove my mind inwards and I said to myself mentally, without actually framing the words: "Now death has come; what does it mean? What is that called dying? This body dies." And at once I dramatised the occurrence of death. I lay with my limbs stretched out still as though rigor mortis has set in, and imitated a corpse so as to give greater reality to the enquiry. I held my breath and kept my lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape, and that neither the word "I" nor any word could be uttered. "Well then," I said to myself, this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burn and reduced to ashes. But with the death of the body, am I dead? Is the body I? It is silent and inert, but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of I within me, apart from it. So I am the Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit. All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truths which I perceived directly almost without thought process. "I" was something real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with the body was centered on that "I". From that moment onwards, the "I" or Self focussed attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death vanished once and for all. The ego was lost in the flood of Self awareness. Absorption continued in the Self continued unbroken from that time. Other thought might come and go like the various notes of music, but the "I" continued like the fundamental sruti [that which is heard] note which underlies and blends with all other notes." http://www.geocities.com/ganesha_gate/maharishi.html. 
   
It is reported that after this event, he lost interest in school-studies, friends, and relations. Avoiding company, he preferred to sit alone, absorbed in concentration on the Self, and went daily to to the Meenakshi Temple, ecstatically devoted to the images of the Gods, tears flowing profusely from his eyes. Venkataraman stayed at his uncle's house for about 6 more weeks in this state, until criticism by his elder brother led him to think of Arunachala, and secretly left for Tiruvannamalai and Arunachala, and lived there as a renunciate for the rest of his life. Gradually, despite his silence, austerities, and desire for privacy, he attracted attention from visitors, and some became his disciples. Eventually, his family discovered his whereabouts from the reports of visitors, but despite pleas from his Mother, he refused to leave. In 1902 a Government official named Sivaprakasam Pillai, with writing slate in hand, visited the young Swami in the hope of obtaining answers to questions about ‘How to know one’s true identity’. The fourteen questions put to the young Swami and his answers were Sri Ramana's first teachings on his the method for which he became widely known, Self-Enquiry, eventually published as 'Nan Yar?', or in English, ‘Who am I?’. .http://www.arunachalasamudra.org/ramana.html. Sri Ganapathi Sastri, a Vedic scholar of repute in his age, came to visit Sri Ramana in 1907, and after receiving instructions from him, later published under the title Ramana Gita, he proclaimed him as Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. Sri Ramana was known henceforth by this name.The path of Sri Ramana, Part One by Sri Sadhu Om. Fifth Ed. page 15. 
In 1912, while in the company of disciples, he was observed to undergo about a fifteen minute period where he showed the outward symptoms of death, which reportedly resulted thereafter in an enhanced ability to engage in practical affairs whle remaining in 'Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi. In 1916 his mother Alagammal and younger brother Nagasundaram joined Sri Ramana at Tiruvannamalai and followed him when he moved to the larger Skandashram Cave, where Bhagavan lived until the end of 1922. His mother took up the life of a sanyasin, and Sri Ramana began to give her intense, personal instuction, while she took charge of the Ashram kitchen. Ramana's younger brother, Nagasundaram, then became a sannyasin, assuming the name Niranjanananda, becoming known as Chinnaswami (the younger Swami). Beginning in 1920, his Mother's health deteriorated. On the day of her death, May 19, 1922, at about 8 a.m., Ramana sat beside her. It is reported that throughout the day, he had his right hand on her heart, on the right side of the chest. and his left hand on her head, until her death around 8:00 p.m., when Ramana pronounced her liberated, literally, ‘Adangi Vittadu, Addakam’ (‘absorbed’).”  Later Ramana said of this: “You see, birth experiences are mental. Thinking is also like that, depending on samskaras (tendencies). Mother was made to undergo all her future births in the comparatively short time.” http://www.satramana.org/html/maharshi_stories.htm  Her body was buried on the banks of Palitirtham, a tank at the foot of the southern slope of Arunachala. After this Sri Ramana often walked from Skandashram to her tomb, then in December 1922, he came down from Skandashram permanently and settled at the base of the Hill, where Ramanashram is still located today.
It was in 1911 that the first westerner, Frank Humphreys, then a policeman stationed in India, first discovered him, and then wrote about Sri Ramana articles first published in The International Psychic Gazette in 1913. However, Sri Ramana only became relatively well known in and out of India after 1934 when Paul Brunton, having first visited Sri Ramana in January 1931, published the book A Search in Secret India, which became very popular. Resulting visitors included Paramahansa Yogananda, Sumerset Maugham, Mercedes De Acosta, Julian P. Johnson, and Arthur Osborne. Sri Ramana's relative fame spread throughout the 1940s. However, even as his fame spread, Sri Ramana was noted for his belief in the power of silence and relatively sparse use of speech, and a lack of concern for criticism http://www.members.shaw.ca/abhishiktananda/Brunton.pdf. His lifestyle remained that of a renunciate.
Sri Ramana was noted for his unusual love of animals and his assertion that liberation was possible for animals too. On the morning of June 18, 1948, he realized his favorite cow Lakshmi was near death. Just as he had with his own Mother, Sri Ramana placed his hand on her head and over her heart. The cow died peacefully at 11:30 a.m. and Sri Ramana later declared that the cow was liberated. http://www.satramana.org/html/maharshi_stories.htm#Animals
Sri Ramana was noted for his belief in the power of silence and relatively sparse use of speech. He led a modest life and as a renunciate depended on visitors and devotees for the barest necessities. However, the popular image of him as a person who spent most of his time doing nothing except silently sitting in samadhi is highly inaccurate, according to his biographer David Godman. According to Godman, in later years, Sri Ramana was actually quite active in Asrham activities until his health failed. http://www.davidgodman.org/rteach/jd3.shtml.
It was not long after the 50 year anniversary of his arrival at Arunachala 1946 that Sri Ramana's health rapidly deteriorated. In November 1948 a tiny cancerous lump the size of a pea was found, and in February 1949 this was removed by the ashram doctor, assisted by another devotee doctor. Soon, another growth appeared, and another operation was done by an eminent surgeon in March, 1949, and Radium was applied. The doctor told Sri Ramana that a complete amputation of the arm to the shoulder was required to save his life, but Sri Ramana refused. A third and fourth operation were performed in August and December of 1949, but only weakened him. Other systems of medicine were then tried; all proved fruitless and were stopped by the end of March when devotees gave up all hope. During all this, Sri Ramana reportedly remained peaceful and unconcerned. As his condition worsened, Sri Ramana remained available for the thousands of vistors who came to see him, even when his attendants urged him to rest. Reportedly, his attitude towards death was serene. To devotees who begged him to cure himself for the sake of his devotees, Sri Ramana is said to have replied “Why are you so attached to this body. Let it go.”, and “Where can I go? I am here.” http://www.satramana.org/html/maharshi_s_life.htm#TheFinalYears
By April 1950 Sri Ramana was too weak to go to the hall, and visiting hours were limited to 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. in the morning and 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the evening. Visitors would file past the small room where he spent his final days to get one final glance. By April 14th, it was evident the end was near. Swami Satyananda, the attendant at the time,reports, “On the evening of 14th April 1950, we were massaging Sri Ramana’s body. At about 5 o’clock, he asked us to help him to set up. Precisely at that moment devotees started chanting ‘Arunachala Siva’, ‘Arunachala Siva’. When Sri Bhagavan heard this his face lit up with radiant joy. Tears began to flow from his eyes and continued to flow for a long time. I was wiping them from time to time. I was also giving him spoonfuls of water boiled with ginger. The doctor wanted to administer artificial respiration but Sri Bhagavan waved it away … Sri Bhagavan’s breathing became gradually slower and slower and at 8:47 p.m. it subsided . ietly." At that very moment, in many places all over India, there were independent reports of seeing a bright light rising into the sky. Reportedly, millions in India mourned his passing. Mercedes De Acosta notes that a long article about his death in the New York Times ended with: "Here in India, where thousands of so-called holy men claim close tune with the infinite, it is said that the most remarkable thing about Ramana Maharshi was that he never claimed anything remarkable for himself, yet became one of the most loved and respected of all."http://www.angelfire.com/realm/bodhisattva/deacosta2.html. --Dseer 09:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very poor biographical information 

message: Iddli, you sound A LOT like Dseer.
Would the two of you please answer the following questions:
Do you two know each other?
Are the two of you the same person? 
Thank you. Sethie 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To iddli and Dseer 

message: ===Involved Editors===
Please state your "case" in a few sentences
User Dseer clearly states his bias "I propose neither assertions of validity or non validity for either position, only that there is a conflict" and wishes that opinion reflected in the article, without providing a citation for it. He origoannly argue for the weasel words "despite this" now he is usuing a citation which does not support the idea he is using it for. I believe the most neutral approach would be to say: Ramana said _____ and other teachers says _____ and leave out all other commentary and let the reader decide. The current version is a step forward [] yet I still believe some editors are trying to make up the readers's mind about what is true, without just letting facts speak for themselves.   Sethie 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC comments 

message: Please state your "case" in a few sentences
User Dseer clearly states his bias "I propose neither assertions of validity or non validity for either position, only that there is a conflict" and wishes that opinion reflected in the article, without providing a citation for it. He origoannly argue for the weasel words "despite this" now he is usuing a citation which does not support the idea he is using it for. I believe the most neutral approach would be to say: Ramana said _____ and other teachers says _____ and leave out all other commentary and let the reader decide. The current version is a step forward [] yet I still believe some editors are trying to make up the readers's mind about what is true, without just letting facts speak for themselves.   Sethie 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Involved Editors

message: I re-read the page you present for him and don't see him as claiming to be "in Ramana's lineage." I see him with a page that says "Lineage:" and has three teachers listed under. I have changed the wording to reflect this. Sethie 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first sentence: "Despite the above and the statement of the Ashram's official magazine that there is no lineage there are many contemporary gurus/teachers who publically associate themselves with Sri Ramana, some who claim a kind of lineage with Ramana" is sufficiently sourced by the Mountain Path editorial talking about the lineage claims existing, no other sources are needed. There are dozens of people claiming to be in a lineage with Ramana, mostly with suspect reputations. At this point, having proven the lineage claim exists, no need to give any of them, including the ones you mentioned or Gangaji and her Wikipedia mentioned, sex-scandal fallen teacher but "enlightened" husband Eli free publicity just because they claim to be enlightened and in a lineage neither the founder or the disciple recognized. Get rid of the second sentence and all other references then, lets move on, I was just trying to help a fellow editor out. The article is very poor still, lots of work is needed. All editors, including Sethie, are responsible for helping to find good sources and not just criticism. We need simplicity but not at the expense of overlooking key points. --Dseer 06:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the progress being made. Constructive edits of my work are encouraged. Lets all take this opportunity to make a fresh start and not just use the pre-existing but deeply flawed article as a benchmark. There is lots of work left for all of us here to do to clean up the inaccurate and/or incomplete information before resubmitting for a GA, but I assume we can all agree at least Sri Ramana's life and teaching is finally being reported with accuracy. --Dseer 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eli 

message: Would like to suggest that some of Sri Ramana's attendants also be given mention here. Either in this section or built into his bio. e.g. Palaniswamy, (the one who died with his head on Ramana's lap). I would help out but i am lacking info such as dates. Madhava Swami is another of the well-known attendants as is Kunju Swami. 
Annamalai Swami also served Ramana for over a decade.
The level of devotion to Ramana may be elicited by the 2 ladies (Echamma and Mudaliar Granny) who for 40 years never ate a morsel until Ramana had eaten from it.
My point is that Sri Ramana's life is incomplete without the mention of certain people who served him or affected his mortal life. So I am not suggesting a comprehensive list of devotees and attendants, just the ones whom you might consider really important. Arunachalesha 08:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if others are mentioned in the article, space should not be spent on all those modern claimants who never actually met Sri Ramana and whose claims are not recognized, but on those who actually played a significant role in his life. --Dseer 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know what is the most neutral and encyclopedia-esque position on this issue is, I am still sitting with it. I do know that mention of the pheonomena is neccesary, it is big and it happens a lot. I am surprised Papaji is not mentioned here, isn't he the most famous of Ramana's students? Sethie 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Famous" by no means means that he (Papaji) was actually a student/follower of Ramana. He became famous in the west, due to sending followers there to get more people. As far as taachings go, Ramana wanted seekers to put in effort, wherease I believe Papaji did not. Ramana's true followers (Muruganar, Kunju Swami, Annamalai) never wanted name and fame, but i guess thats a POV. Arunachalesha 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether he was or wasn't a student of Ramana, he claims some connection. He is certainly notable... so let's just find Papaji's  own words and just state them, without needing to confirm or deny them- that is what NPOV means to me. To not include him in this article reaks of POV-pushing. The bottom line is whether we think he is a junk teacher or not )I personally don't hold him in particularly high regard) he is one of the most famous people in the West (and maybe in India, I don't feel comfortable making claims about who is famous for another culture) who yes, CLAIMS to have awoken through association with Ramana. To leave him out because we think he isn't the real deal or his teachings are different, is total violation of WP:NPOV. Let's just have a neutral reporting of the facts please, with no personal interpretation or analysis, just citing OTHER people's interpretations or anlysis. Sethie 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Followers 

message: Someone has added a para that Ramana's teaching was similar to Zen. My understanding is that "Who Am I" is NOT a koan. I feel this is an innessential point of view (imho). I was also under the impression that we were keeping this page crisp and to-the-point. I feel this para should be deleted. Arunachalesha 17:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let's give the guy a chance, it reaks of OR to me, however, maybe it isn't just an opinion and someone notable made the comparison. I have asked for a citation. If he doesn't have one within a week, I say we delete it. Sethie 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A spam vandal who added this unsourced, spam opinion here and at Sri Nisargadatta before. Deleted this contribution once before at both articles, will do so every time this spam is added to either article until the guy provides some relevant source. There is no source from either teacher since both teachers absolutely stated the practice was not a mantra. No need to give this spam of some zen practice a week of free advertising here. --Dseer 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: There is one Zen teacher, who is increasingly recognized a great Zen Master at least comparable to the founders of other zen schools, Bankei, whose teachings, when you equate "Unborn" with Self, are not unlike Sri Ramana's. He even had a kind of death experience. Bankei was a humble man who criticized stale koans, stale ritual, stale beliefs, gender based discrimination, as well as other unnecessary barriers, and taught ordinary folks, a few who tradition says became enlightened. He advised simply abiding in the Unborn Mind (Self) until realization became stable. Naturally, this was a threat to the traditional zen schools and authorities and after his death his teachings were suppressed for a long time. However, there isn't any attributable source for the assertion of such an equivalence even though it has been noticed, so this so far is just OR for information to editors here who probably haven't looked into this in case anybody has personal interest. Anyone who claims that Self Enquiry is a "koan" needs to provide a source first, not some spam link to some other practice, and even then should be put in the critical section since there is ample evidence Sri Ramana never taught it. --Dseer 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zen, what next ? 

message: For some reason, about a week and a half ago, this mind assigned itsself the task of being the wiki-rule guardian over this page, making sure citations were in place, WP:NOR, etc, etc., etc. 
In looking back I very much regret the energy I came from and many of my actions and posts on this talk page. I was at times brash, inconsiderate, arrogant, borderline insulting, preachy, demanding that things be done my way, intolerant, impaitent, thinking that only I knew what was the right way to do things, not willing to listen what either of you were saying (more so towards Deseer).
So I would very much like to appologize for any way that i may have hindered the work you two are doing. I hear both of you asking me to not delete stuff and to talk about it first, which I am very willing to do.
And, I would like to ask: is there any other way I can make things right? warmly, Sethie 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An appology 

message: I would like one or 2 more pix loaded, but am a little hesitant with the license etc. not sure how to go about it. can someone else help ? Seems the existing pic mentions copyright of Sri Ramanasramam, so we should not have a problem loading new ones. The pictures i have in mind could be
# earliest one (age 21)
# picture of Ramana with background of Arunachala (present on many book covers) with leg crossed
# possibly the 1928 pic of him standing with the upcoming asram in background  (altho thats very blurred)
the above are just suggestions, thou. If you see other pages like that of Adi Shankara you will notice that their pages are replete with pix. So hopefully that wont be construed as making this a "fan-site" :-)
thx Arunachalesha 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -) Well, the guy who would do such a thing has left the building, however, he tells me that if he were still around, you would only be IN DANGER!!!! of this occuring if you did things very differently on this page then other wiki pages Sethie 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "one or 2 pix" will put me in danger !!! Oh my !
That is precisely why i am studying similar sites like Adi Shankara, Buddha, Gandhi etc. Arunachalesha 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you said it, not me. I have set idea of what is or isn't too many pictures in an article, it's more like I'll know it when I see it....Sethie 04:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs please 

message: Yes, I agree one link to MJ's work is adequate. At the top of the page we are currently linked to, both the ebook link and the blog link are clearly visible. Iddli 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael James links 

message: I have twice removed links to this site (http://www.swargarohan.org/) because the site is mainly about another teacher. I just removed the link in the biographies section (which takes one to an e-book  "biography of Ramana Maharshi" in Gujarati) after carefully reading the smaller Ramana Maharshi biography on the Yogeshwarji site. The small biography contains numerous errors and does not contain any information about Sri Ramana which is not already contained in the wikipedia article (other than the detail of Sri Ramana granting Yogeshwarji darshan in the Himalayas). If anyone here is able to read the e-book and finds that it contains valuable new information about or insights into Sri Ramana and his life, let's put the link to the e-book back on. (Iddli 21:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sethie thinks an even better solution is to use it as a refference if there is unique information there. If it adds nothing new, no need for it to be a link. If it adds just a little new, use it as a refference. Sethie 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good plan. I wish I could read Gujarati to see if there is anything in the bio that somehow escaped the attention of the other biographers. The nature of the errors in the brief bio of Sri Ramana on the Yogeshwarji site made me think this unlikely, but maybe we will be happily surprised. (Iddli 02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yogeshwarji links 

message: In case of a possible WP:COI Sethie has removed a link. Sethie 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link 

message: The changes I made recently to the introductory 2 sentences were meant to incorporate some of the very helpful suggestions recently made here by David Godman. Above, David Godman explains why the term Hindu is misleading (and, in addition to the court transcripts DG refers to, there is also Sri Bhagavan's removal of his sacred thread after he offered himself at his Father's feet at the Arunachaleswara temple shortly after his arrival there). It was David Godman's comments that led  me to feel we needed to tone down the assertion that Sri Ramana "primarily advocated" self-enquiry -- similarly,  to say that he "propounded advaita" seems to me to attribute a kind of zealousness to him that he simply did not have.
I propose that we include in the Family Background section the fact that Sri Ramana was born into a Hindu family, but I agree with David Godman that it is misleading to include this in the sentence or two in which we attempt to capture his "essence". Iddli 04:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was tolerant because I thought maybe you simply didn't know better. Given your bigoted response, I will not tolerate anymore your bigotry towards westerners and your uncollaborative approach, as well as your proven factual errors. I suggest you read Wikipedia guidelines about expertise and realize you are no expert and in no position make such accusations about a noted Ramana expert and published editor of numerous books and Ashram publications just because you don't like what he says. You are really claiming the Ashram itself who endorses his works and made him editor of the Ashram publication doesn't understand Ramana's teachings, without any evidence to back up such outrageous charges. Your links are unsatisfactory to prove Godman is wrong and will not be accepted. The Sivananda link is spam and will be deleted henceforth without further discussion. You false statements about Ramana's teaching are demonstrably wrong and since you do not take friendly advice kindly will henceforth be deleted without further discussion. If you do not immediately desist with your zealot agenda, I will report you for non-collaboration, conflict of interest in that you are trying to advance a pro-hindu nationalist agenda on the english wikipedia site, and self-stated bigotry, proven by your own words. I suggest you do not try and foist your bigoted, nationalist agenda on those who have spent a lifetime studying Advaita and Sri Ramana in particular. It will not be tolerated. --Dseer 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tolerance is a "dirty" word , Please dont use that word in any of the "dharmic" articles or for that matter, either in any other article in WIKIPEDIA too. I would request you to practice "acceptance" instead of being "mere" tolerant towards . -Bharatveer 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed prior evidence of your bigotry and ignorance re this subject but wanted to give you a chance first, which is what I meant by tolerant. Request what you will, I am under no dharmic requirement to accept what is not devic but asuric without comment or action. Don't assume because of your bigotry I am a stupid westerner ignorant of dharma. --Dseer 04:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  introductory sentences 

message: Substituted at 21:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment