Talk:Ramana Maharshi

Jung-quote

I've reverted the reworking of the Jung-quote on "the whitest spot". The Dutch translation says:

Hij is "echt", en daar bovenuit bovendien een "fenomeen", dat, vanuit Europees standpunt bezien, een geheel eigen karakter bezit. Maar in India is hij het witste punt op een wit vlak (waarbij men de wijsheid daarvan om deze reden op de voorgrond plaatst, dat er evenzeer zwarte vlekken te vinden zijn. (p.227)

In translation:

He is "real", and above that also a "phenomenon" that, from a European point of view, has its own character. But in India he is the whitest point on a white surface (in which the wisdom of this is placed in the foreground, because also black spots can be found. (Google translate + correction by me)

Note the omission of the word "but", and the relativising sentence following "the whitest spot". See also J. Glenn Friesen, JUNG, RAMANA MAHARSHI AND EASTERN MEDITATION.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was directly quoting from Jung. Maybe Jung also said what is quoted on p 227 of that book -- but in another context he said something quite different. I will let that p 227 quote stand -- but there is no reason to delete the quote I added (and am re-adding). The Jung paragraph I am looking at says, "Sri Ramana is a true son of the Indian earth. He is genuine and, in addition to that, something quite phenomenal. In India, he is the whitest spot in a white space." Please do not delete this quote as it conveys quite a different meaning from your quote, and is properly sourced. (It is actually the forward from The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi (Shambhala) . At the end of the 4 page Foreword by Jung, the book states that this Foreword was originally published as the Foreword to Zimmer's Der Weg zum Selbst. The translator is RFC Hull. Iddli (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind the "true son" etc., but the quote in "The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" is not the same as the quote in "De weg tot het Zelf". As far as I know, the original text was edited, to make it more favourable for Ramana Maharshi. Also, you did not give "The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" as source, but "Der Weg". When you do that, you have to quote correctly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the quotations and citations. As it is now, it shows very clearly some hagiographic tendencies, and the rewriting of original material by later publishers. Sources should be mentioned, and quoted correctly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

JJ, I began to dig deeper and read everything I could find about Jung’s contradictory statements about Ramana ... something about them just did not quite make sense. I found a 2 part article in The Mountain Path (2010) called Cold Feet which is “An interpretation of Carl Jung’s behaviour in India and his subsequent written explanations as to why he did not visit Sri Ramanasramam”. Here are some excerpts:

During his travels in India Jung could not but be aware of Sri Ramana, particularly during his stay in nearby Madras. And he could not avoid making a decision whether to see Sri Ramana even if it meant deliberately not addressing the opportunity. Jung had borrowed his fundamental idea of ‘the Self’ from the east and especially the Upanishads, of which Sri Ramana was a living exemplar. Jung was at the time not only one of the world’s most influential psychiatrists but also a leading intellectual light in bringing the wisdom of the East to Europe, and his proposed interaction with or comments on Sri Ramana are still important today.
His comments about Sri Ramana can probably be best understood by reflecting on the origins of Jung’s mental state which sheds new light on why he didn’t visit Sri Ramana. With this new insight we will argue that the actual reason for Jung not visiting Sri Ramana is quite different from the reasons he gave at the time.
In his essay, The Holy Men of India, Jung gave a confusing picture of Sri Ramana, which also contains a degree of ambivalence. My research has led to the hypothesis that Jung was not just hesitant towards Sri Ramana but actually duplicitous. If we learn more about the people who knew Jung and his own later writing this should enable us to penetrate Jung’s defences and reveal the truth about why he deliberately avoided Sri Ramana and then tried to conceal it. One apparent obstacle to a right understanding is that Jung, who was without any doubt an extraordinarily intelligent man, suffered from prolonged mental illness. At first it seems difficult to understand him but this is really only because he concealed so very much about himself in the Holy Men of India and in his autobiography. However, Jung left a trail of evidence in his other later correspondence.
Jung’s behaviour as a prophetic guru would have made it very difficult if not impossible for him to meet Sri Ramana, who as a genuine guru would have called into question, albeit in silence, Jung’s claim to be someone with the special abilities of an authentic guru.
In the early days of psychology, Jung stated that he wasn’t the sort of man to support anything he hadn’t discovered himself. In his autobiography this is the fundamental reason for him taking a stand against the ‘holy men’ in India. “I studiously avoided all so-called ‘holy men’. I did so because I had to make do with my own truth, not accept from others what I could not attain on my own. I would have felt it as a theft had I attempted to accept their truth for myself.”

Jung was very serious about deliberately avoiding the ‘holy men’ especially one who may jeopardise his life’s work. He seemed closed to anyone else’s vision of the truth. This is in keeping with Anthony Storr‘s assessment of him being a guru. One could postulate that Jung was not only arrogant and rigid about truth but also about what he claimed to actually know…
There is compelling evidence shown in Part One, which shows there were several powerful forces influencing Jung at that time of his visit to India which discouraged him from visiting Sri Ramana and explained his apparent ambivalence in The Holy Men of India. Jung’s understanding of the Self was only from an intellectual stance not from one of experiencing the atman ‘the Self’ through existence-consciousness-bliss, (Sat Chit Ananda). Jung borrowed ideas from the East about the atman ‘the Self’ but when he was faced with the task of meeting Sri Ramana, the person known and honoured as an authentic guru, he studiously avoided meeting him.
He describes Sri Ramana being absorbed in ‘the Self’ but admits to not understanding Sri Ramana’s Self-realisation or what he actually did do. He also admits that his field of psychology is not competent in understanding the Eastern insight of the atman ‘the self’. This begs the question, ‘Why exactly is Jung who is a psychologist being so critical?’ When we look at his later correspondence, it proves that Jung concealed the truth about why he didn’t meet Sri Ramana and why his description of Ramana vacillated in the Holy Men of India.
In later correspondence, Jung is for the first time, actually honest and confesses that he was clearly aware of the profound danger he would be in if he delved further into the East. It is only logical to extrapolate on this that the person who represented the gravest risk to Jung of losing his roots again, was the person he wrote the most about in the East and that was Sri Ramana.”

Back to my comments … If we are going to include Jung’s view of Ramana in the article, we need to present it accurately. It is too complex a topic to toss out a short puzzling quote or two or three. I think a better place to handle all this would be in the Jung Wikipedia article rather then the Ramana one (as it mainly about Jung and his fear of another psychotic episode, etc) and not really about Ramana … but if you feel strongly that it needs to be in the Ramana article, then we need to present Jung’s ambivalence and confusion in context. Iddli (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We could say something in the Ramana article like, "Jung expressed considerable ambivalence about Ramana and avoided visiting him" and link this line to the Jung article and then go into it in depth over there. I see that Jung's spirituality is covered very fleetingly in the Jung article. Iddli (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good research! My compliments. I think my problem is the misquotation of "the whitest spot". Without the "but", the statement is totally opposite from Jung's intention. Maybe "the whitest spot" shouldn't be mentioned at all. But regarding pointing to the "context" of Ramana, I think that deserves mentioning. There's more to him than the story of his enlightenment and the attraction of his devotees. for indians, Ramana was not just Ramana, but also the eombodiemnt of the Absolute, an "idea" which was (is) pre-given in their culture. And western devotees also had pre-given conceptions and expectations. I'm referring here to "Social-constructionism", and Berger's ideas on this (berger, The Sacred Canopy). Zimmer and Jung, with all his problems, were aware of this context. As is J. Glenn Friessen (see also his JUNG, RAMANA MAHARSHI AND EASTERN MEDITATION), but he is self-published... And Rambachan, but that's about Vivekananda. David Gordon White also mentions the need to take the context of Indian religiosity into consideration. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Good change to the lead you made. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Date of enlightenment

Date of Enlightenment The text gives 17 July 1896, and cites ref 15, but that ref gives no such date. I have not seen this date mentioned in any book. Can it be validated? Kollerstrom (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I followed the link which took me to Timeless in Time. In that book (which I happened to have) the date of enlightenment is given as 7/17/1896 (page 17). I am sure this must be right ... it was certainly July 17, and he was 16 at the time ... Iddli (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Wow- love the article. I haven't visited it in maybe five years, and it's looking wonderful.

Some thoughts:

• Reffering to the "I-I" in the 1st paragraph seems off to me. It is a not well known refference to his concept of enlightenment, and to someone who knows little about the subject it would be bewildering.
• Love the little details added- like thinking he was possessed, karma mukti vs his own awakening, not wanting to be at the ashram! (hadn't heard that one)
• Like the very detailed chronology of his different locations.

Now that it's built up, I think some slight trimming is in order. For example:

• "Ramana considered God, Guru and Self to be the manifestations of the same reality.[web 15] One of these manifestations is the mountain Arunachala. Ramana himself was a devotee of Lord Shiva in the form of the mountain Arunachala,[web 16] which is considered to be the manifestation of Lord Shiva.[22] Ramana considered Arunachala to be his Guru.[22] It can be worshipped through the mantra "Om arunachala shivaya namah!",[web 16] and by Pradakshina of Arunachala, a practice which is performed by Saivites as a form of worship, and also often was done by Ramana.[22] Shankara saw Arunchala as Mount Meru, which is in Indian mythology the axis of the world, and the abode of Brahman and the gods.[web 17]"

Not seeing the need to mention the mantra, nor shankara's view of it.

• Lineage doesn't really fit under the charisma section....

I think a better concept would be- Reverence of Ramana Maharshi. I think it would work well because you have well documented other's reverence of him, and his discouraging of that.

Wish I had the time to help with these ideas and I don't... I think I'll add one edit.

peace, and thanks for an amazing article Sethie (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah- the section is unbalance re the Maharshi's teachings on the inner guru, leaving out Ramana's teachings on the force or emanation that comes from the body of a jiva-mukti. I have added a small piece to hopefully bring some balance.... Sethie (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sethie, I agree with all your suggestions. The I-I details do seem like they don't belong in the first part of the article but it is so important I think it deserves its own little section. I may add a change or two you have suggested but please make changes yourself too. Iddli (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan: Hi Sethie, thnaks for the appreciation! I'm glad you appreicate the details. A few comments:

• I've re-inserted the "I-I" notes at the teachings-section. It may not be well-known, but it is a central notion in his teachings.
• The word "enlightenment does not appear in "Talks"; see Google. To use this word in the lead is kind of WP:OR - though it's tempting, of course! That was also the reason to use such extensive notes, to give an explanation of the term right away. I've added the word "mukti", though, with a link; this word is used by Ramana.
• I've split the subsection on physical contact, and added some {{source?}} tags, including for the original sentence, since it's not clear if this is in the Godman-source or comes fromanother source

As for Iddli's further edits:

• I've re-inserted the charisma-header; it makes pretty clear that Ramana was charismatic. "Devotion" is part of this charisma. The link provides further insight into "charisma".
• Characterisation: I've first moved this back to his way of life, then I removed four unsourced statements, and moved two quotes to more appropriate places in the article. I've also re-inserted the {{Source?}} tags for those two quotes; no sources were provided yet. And which source says explicitly that those people teaching in his name do not behave like this?
• I've restored the older lineage-section; the previous restoration contained redundant information, and messed-up or missed references. But there-after, I've moved down the subsection "Ramana did not publicize himself as a guru" to the lineage-section, in line with Iddli's edit. There-after, I split it up, and added references.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced

The list of characteristics is still unsourced. See WP:RS. But, it's also not clear to me how such a list "clarif[ies] the lineage issue". I've added a comment and a quote from Conway, which makes clear (I suppose) the point you want to make. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I will add in the sources for those seven points as soon as I get the time. Some years ago, the Ramana Maharshi page was used as a way to generate traffic to the websites of various people who falsely claimed to be in his lineage. (The Ramana article stated they were in his lineage and linked their names, within the Ramana article, to their spiritual business websites.) I removed the names of those who were falsely claiming lineage and wrote those seven points as a way of making clear how very differently those people taught and lived from the way Ramana did. The contrast was so stark that no one ever placed their name in the Ramana article again as a guru in his lineage. These seven points (correctly sourced) have a place in this article. I believe many more readers are interested in the relationship between Ramana and those claiming to teach (right now) in his name than are interested in details like the fact that the sannyasin who tried to get Ramana to take sannyas belonged to Sringeri Sharada Peetham. It's okay if you want to put in little details like that -- but I suspect the main reason most people will read the lineage section is to try to understand the controversy surrounding so many people claiming to be part of a nonexistent lineage. If you read the whole section on Timothy Conway's website which you quote from (or delve into the business practices and lifestyles of those claiming to be in Ramana's lineage), you will see the relevance of those seven points. The Conway quote is excellent -- but I think the simplest thing of all is to make those seven points and not say anything critical at all about the so-called lineage holders. Iddli (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Don't worry; as long as I'm editing on this page, lineage-claims will be scrutinised - and most likely rejected. You did read the Neo-Advaita page, didn't you? I once put a link to it on the Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) page; it was removed right away diff & Talk:Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)/Archive 1#Classification of Cohen's Teaching.

Regarding the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, you're probably right that most people don't care. They probably don't even have a clue what it is, and what a sampradaya is. But it is relevant information; it provides information, and a context, to this guru-tradition. Also, but this goes even further, it points to the question "What is Advaita Vedanta?" The Shankara-sampradaya, or (the popularised and modernised version of) his philosophical system? Strictly speaking, Advaita Vedanta is the sampradaya; the popularised version is the current of thought (I hope my English is correct here; yours is better ) to which Ramana is connected (or annexated). Also, did you know that Nisargadatta Maharaj was not authorised by his teacher to appoint "heirs" himself? That's also a relevant piece of information on the workings of this sampradaya-system (though it does not have to be included in the article).

Nevertheless, I still doubt if you can just put in this list. But I do see your point, so I'll also think about it further too. How about adding those points (when they are sourced) as a note?

Meanwhile, I'll also scrutinise the information which is already in this section, and check the sources again. Extensive sourcing is very useful here, I think, given the point you made above, and the strategy you followed.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

One source missing: "Ramana did not publicize himself as a guru". But lots of references added, and some revealing quotes. Also, maybe to your chagrin, examples of teachers who claim to be in "Ramana's lineage". But, in a note, and contained within a few critical remarks on those claims. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Got a source for that one too! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Searching the sources

Let's see what we can find. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Sri Ramana's method of teaching was characterized by all of the following:"

Comment by JJ: - This remark makes more sense when it is preceded by a short overview of shortcomings of Neo-Advaita teachers. But, then we would have a repetition of the Neo-Advaita article, or a mere list of accusations and wrongdoings (for example: teacher X had an extra-marital affair, teacher Y bought an expensive Mercedes). Which is probably not acceptable for Wikipedia, and not interesting anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

1. He urged people who came to him to practice self-enquiry;

'Comment by JJ: - Funny, I thought we had that one sourced in the article, but we don't - yet. But this is the one being used in the lead: David Godman (1991), I' and 'I-I' - A Reader's Query. The Mountain Path, 1991, pp. 79-88. Part one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

2. He directed people to look inward rather than seeking outside themselves for Realization. ("The true Bhagavan resides in your Heart as your true Self. This is who I truly am.");

Comment by JJ: - Full quote: "Do not cling to the form of the Guru for this will perish; do not cling to His feet for His attendants will stop you. The true Bhagavan resides in your Heart as your true Self. This is who I truly am." Full quote which comes from Annamalai Swamy and is quoted by Source: David Godman

3. He viewed all who came to him as the Self rather than as lesser beings. ("The jnani sees no one as an ajnani. All are only jnanis in his sight.");

Comment by JJ: - [1] And here's an online edition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

4. He charged no money, and was adamant that no one ever ask for money (or anything else) in his name;
5. He never promoted or called attention to himself. Instead, Sri Ramana remained in one place for 54 years, offering spiritual guidance to anyone of any background who came to him, and asking nothing in return;
6. He considered humility to be the highest quality;
7. He said the deep sense of peace one felt around a jnani was the surest indicator of their spiritual state, that equality towards all was a true sign of liberation, and that what a true jnani did was always for others, not themselves.

Association with a guru

I've removed the following sentence, which was added by Sethie:

"Ramana said that association with a guru was one of the most parts of a spiritual aspirants life, because most people would be unable to attain enlightenment."

It's unsourced, but it also makes no sense:

• "most parts": should this be "most important parts" (c.q. aspects)?
• "most people would be unable to attain enlightenment" - then what is the rationale for association with a guru? Should "on their own" be added? But how does that relate to his own awakening and subsequent development?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's David Goodman's understanding of RM's teachings

It is a basic tenet of Sri Ramana’s teaching that a Guru is necessary for almost everyone who is striving towards a permanent awareness of the Self. The catalytic role of the Guru in spiritual development is therefore crucial; except in rare instances, ignorance of the Self is so deeply rooted that individual seekers are unable to escape from it by their own efforts. http://www.hinduism.co.za/guru.htm

Word it how you like.