Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 1

message: Is it possible to automatically reverse link pages? For example, the page on Ramakrishna Paramhansa provides his deathyear which links to the page for that year (1886). But that page doesnt contain his name in the list of eminent people who died in that year! It would be nice if this was automatic. Perhaps this requires some intelligent pattern matching... but I am sure it can be done (at least for almost all cases). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sray (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 April 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Shri Ramakrishna's love for Kali was famed. It is one of the great devotional stories about God in any religion. I'll work on it, but hopefully someone else can write stuff on this too (different POV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordSimonofShropshire (talk • contribs) 17:03, 31 March 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial text

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Protest Kali's Child 

message: 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 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.
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-folks factory is in full bloom, egged on by servile "natives"!!
Varahamihira 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response new thread 

message: 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)
replies: text: I find your new suggestion more accurate and more "NPOV". --vineeth 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addtion 

message: "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)
replies: text: Fixed. — goethean ॐ 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small NPOV line 

message: I just reverted a link to the following URL  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."  
The title of the monograph is Kali's Child Revisited, or, Didn't Anyone Check the Documentation?  The monograph bears the copyright: "Copyright © 2000 by Swami Tyagananda".
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)
thread_title:  monograph by Swami Tyagananda 

message: I have removed some material that seems rather strange: .  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)
thread_title:  Please review for appropriateness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ramakrishna's Name 

message: 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 Camorantalk 15:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I would like more opinions. --Mankar Camorantalk 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Congratulations. — goethean ॐ 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New article? 

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