Talk:Ramana Maharshi

Bhakti before Awakening

In the section Awakening (1895-1896) I have removed this sentence

Filled with awe, and a desire for emulation, he began devotional visits to the nearby Meenakshi Temple in Madurai and, associated with this bhakti, later reported fever-like sensations.

Reason - This sentence gives a wrong stress to bakthi before Awakening. Sri Ramana mentions that it is only after his spontaneous experiences of Awakening that he was able to experience bhakti completely. Refer http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/ramana-maharshi/death-experience/

One of the features of my new state was my changed attitude to the Meenakshi Temple. Formerly I used to go there occasionally with friends to look at the images and put the sacred ash and vermillion on my brow and would return home almost unmoved. But after the awakening I went there almost every evening. I used to go alone and stand motionless for a long time before an image of Siva or Meenakshi or Nataraja and the sixty-three saints, and as I stood there waves of emotion overwhelmed me.

Request regular editors of this page to review and advice Prodigyhk (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the info. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I would question reliability of the web reference "Arthur Osborne" used. It seems Arthur has got it mixed up on this. Since, Sri Ramana himself has clearly stated that prior to his Awakening experience, the experience of bhakthi as superficial. And it was only after Awakening that he experience bhakthi in waves of emotion. Need a bit more work through on this :) Prodigyhk (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The source was misquoted; it doesn't mention "bhakti" at all, so that was WP:OR. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Although the word bakthi has been removed, The section still indicates deep experience similar to bakthi before Awakening. - a state of blissful consciousness transcending both the physical and mental plane and yet compatible with full use of the physical and mental facultie'.. This is the reason I feel that the source had got it wrong. Since this section Awakening is a very important part of this document, request that we research further on this and edit to reflect the right sequence. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that all the stories on his awakening are stories, interpretations by others. "The right sequence" is, I'm afraid, impossible to reconstruct. All we can do is give the information provided by those sources. Which might be a bit of a desillusion: such an inspiring person, yet also the subject of interpretation and "stories"... Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We have records of Sri Ramana's own narrations about his Awakening, that we can use here. This will ensure that interpretations by other do not misled us and our readers. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Those records are not exactly reliable. See the section on "Awakening" in the article. There simply is not a record by Ramana himslef on his awakening. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no record ? Please read record of Sri Ramana's description on his state after Awakening regarding his visit to the Madurai Meenakshi Temple. Refer http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/ramana-maharshi/death-experience/

One of the features of my new state was my changed attitude to the Meenakshi Temple. Formerly I used to go there occasionally with friends to look at the images and put the sacred ash and vermillion on my brow and would return home almost unmoved. But after the awakening I went there almost every evening. I used to go alone and stand motionless for a long time before an image of Siva or Meenakshi or Nataraja and the sixty-three saints, and as I stood there waves of emotion overwhelmed me. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Joshua, this page http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/ramana-maharshi/early-life/ on the official page of Ramana Ashram does mention Sri Ramana's experience after reading Periyapuranam. But, does not mention about the experiences at Meenakshi temple before the Death like experience. Suggest we re-edit this paragraph as follows:

A month later he came across a copy of Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam, a book that describes the lives of 63 Saivite saints, and was deeply moved and inspired by it.[12] Filled with awe, and a desire for emulation, he started to experience blissful gratitude. A current of awareness had begun to awaken him, which he then thought was like some kind of pleasant fever. he began to vist ,the nearby Meenakshi Temple in Madurai, where he started to experience "a state of blissful consciousness transcending both the physical and mental plane and yet compatible with full use of the physical and mental faculties".[web 5] Soon after, on July 17, 1896,[12] at age 16, V

Prodigyhk (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - Of course there are records - but not written by himself. All records apparently are influenced by the writers' perception of the chain of events. Soit, so be it. We also don't know who the historical Jesus "really" was.

Regarding the paragraph, if we are to delte a part of it, I'd delete more:

"A month later he came across a copy of Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam, a book that describes the lives of 63 Saivite saints, and was deeply moved and inspired by it.[12] Filled with awe, and a desire for emulation, he started to experience blissful gratitude. A current of awareness had begun to awaken him, which he then thought was like some kind of pleasant fever. He began to vist the nearby Meenakshi Temple in Madurai, where he started to experience "a state of blissful consciousness transcending both the physical and mental plane and yet compatible with full use of the physical and mental faculties".[web 5] Soon after, on July 17, 1896,[12] at age 16, V"

Agree with the modification suggested in this para Prodigyhk (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I happened to see this dialogue and want to clarify something. Prodighyhk, it is always problematic to rely only on one source given that we generally only have subjective accounts of what RM said and it is widely accepted he said different things to different people based on the assessed need and the questioners state. In fact there is a direct account in the biography of his disciple Sri Matha Janaky of a conversation in 1938 where RM stated to her specifically in response to her questions about her pre enlightenment kundalini experiences that his (RMs) experiences at the temple prior to his awakening were associated with what could be considered bhakti and what he later understood was a kundalini awakening; therefore the statement: "Filled with awe, and a desire for emulation, he started to experience blissful gratitude. A current of awareness had begun to awaken him, which he then thought was like some kind of pleasant fever" is probably a far more accurate description. I suggest that David Godman would be a better person to contact to advise about such conflicts and reliable sources given his extensive knowledge as a researcher and librarian than editors over relying on some selected language from the Ashram website when it is not even clear what the context was. 138.163.0.42 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In Sri Ramana Leela, one of the three biographies published (and revised) during Ramna´s life (1936), we read:

"Venkataraman who would earlier visit the temple of Meenakshi only on holy days now became a frequent visitor. On seeing the sport of Sundarareswarar painted in the thousand pillared hall Venkataraman “recollected the emotional upsurge experienced about one year ago on hearing the name of Arunachala.” He also was to further recall the life stories of the devotees which could not influence his life then. “I must also be full of bhakti like the Nayanmars, I thought, Easwara, my father at Arunachala, would grant me refuge at his feet. I would frequently visit the temple and in the presence of the images of the Deities and Nayanmars would be beside myself with emotion and would be tear-filled. I did not know what that agony or emotion was due to. All that I would pray for was that the Lord should make me His devotee, or a member of his retinue or one with unswerving devotion…"

Mauna22 (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is relevant info; would you like to add it to the article? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How come you are so eager to change something when it coincides with your point of view and how, in the other hand, you are so resistant to make changes when proposals do not coincide with it?

Let me remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so is not like you are the one entitled to allow or deny which information can or can´t be used in it. In other words, this article doesn´t belong to you. Think about it, please. Best, Mauna22 (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A very collaborative response, to a friendly question. But to answer your question: the standard biographies of Ramana picture him as attaining complete awakening out of the blue. The quote above shows that this awakening may not have been completely out of the blue, nor without a context. I think this is relevant, because it paints a realistic picture, and a "way" within normal human reach, instead of the idealized picture, which may not be in accordance with the facts. The Idealized picture may offer an "example" which may be valuable for the idealized picture as such, but which is out of human reach, if it's not based upon facts but upon an idealization. With other words: I'd like to follow a human example, not a fiction. Fictions offer unattainable goals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you realize that it was me who brought the quote?

As for “Fictions offer unattainable goals”, let me remind you that this an encyclopedia, not a religious site or a means to attain a particular goal other that to provide reliable information. A wrong approach maybe? Best,Mauna22 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I fully realize that you provided the quote, and I appreciate that. As for my explanation: if you don't like it, then we stick to "provid[ing] reliable information." It's still relevant, for the reasons I already gave before: it offers additional information to the standard, idealized picture. And it is relevant for the question what "awakening" is, and how it can be attained; that question is also relevant when you're not religious, but interested in eastern spirituality. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit

@User:Joshua Jonathan - Yes, nuance that is better off in the main of the article rather than in the introduction of the article, where people who are not well versed in all of these terms or Ramana himself would be better served by having one term instead of three. Bodhadeepika (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bodhadeepika, but I really disagree here. I fully understand your point about being concise, but your edit removed crucial information on the difference between realising "I-I", a central term in Ramana's death-experience; "Self-realisation," which is more like an interpretation of Ramana's insight and answers; and mukthi, liberation. They are not the same! By omitting this information, you remove an unique feature of Ramana's insight and answers, and force him into a standard mold of Indian spirituality, instead of focussing on his own unique features. That's a loss.

And you also removed the named explanatory note, which is repeatedly referred to in the body of the article.Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I'm not against having them in the article in the slightest. As I said above, I just think they shouldn't be in the introduction because it's not introductory information, it's detailed information and very good information at that, that is dealt with later on, and would be better placed later on. I didn't mean to remove that note... Anyway, as you wish. All the best! Bodhadeepika (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Alan Edwards and Orientalism

Objections to Alan Edwards

While the claim of Alan Edwards that Ramana was not an Advaitin is well documented and is supported by testimonies, his alleged demonstration of Ramana´s political vantage point is not documented or supported by any evidence whatsoever, not to mention the context in which this political views are placed. He goes as far as to “demonstrate” that Ramana was sympathetic with the political views of Ganapati Muni for the sole reason that he did not rebuffed him:

“The longevity of their relationship, coupled with no available evidence that Ramana attempted to distance himself from Ganapati or his political followers, demonstrates that Ramana was at least sympathetic to, if not supportive of, Ganapati‟s political agenda.”

A claim rather embarrassing if we consider that the person we are talking about -Ramana Maharshi, was available for everyone at any time and was, at the same time, characterised for being silent.

Edward´s views of “orientalism” are as well far from be steady demonstrations of anything in spite of his own claims (he uses the expression “I demonstrated...” like 20 times in the document). Herein my query. Who is Alan Edwards and why should this information be used in this article? The fact that the document is a “thesis” doesn´t mean the information it contains is accurate or correct. I suggest removing his quotation and the link to his thesis in the “Further Reading” section since the later is not relevant as far as this article is concerned, and the former is just an opinion with no data or evidence to support it Mauna22 (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the link to the thesis, see WP:FURTHER, on "Further reading": "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." Why would a critical analysis of Ramana Maharshi not be relevant to a Wiki-article about Ramana Maharshi, other than WP:DONTLIKEIT? See also WP:BELONG.

The quote is relevant because it points to the context in which the image of Ramana Maharshi as an enlightened saint flourished, and the possibility that scholarship may be influenced by this adoration. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a given analysis talks about a particular subject -in this cae Ramana Maharshi- doesn´t mean that it must necessarily be included in the article; that is a fallacy, please see: affirming the consequent. As for your suggestion that the only reason why I propose to remove the link is that “I don´t like it”, please see: ad hominem. Which, ironically -and since you do not give actual data or offer a counterargument to my claims (see: WP:ITSUSEFUL)- leads me to think that the only reason why you what to keep the link is that is tallies with your idea of Ramana and Hinduism, so please, see: WP:ILIKEIT.

We should look forward to improve the article, offering data, giving suggestions, and cleaning it from spurious or defective information. For this we should use reliable data and logical argumentation, not opinions and much less fallacies. Please see: WP:PPOV

Having said this, let´s see what other colleagues have to say about it Mauna22 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Alan Edwards "help[s] interested readers [to] learn more about the article subject" because he provides a critical analysis of Ramana Maharshi and the context in which he was celebrated. This context, and also the critical attitude, is missing from most sources on him, which are written by devotees. That may suffice for a fansite, but not for an encyclopedia. So, why do you think that he is not relevant for readers? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Basically the main point of the thesis (and of the quote used in the WP article) depends on the premise exemplified in the quotation above mentioned. Is not just that its impossible to be demonstrated: the argumentation is absolutely faulty.

As I said, let´s see what the others have to say about it. Mauna22 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are those sources who criticize Ramana Maharshi for a number of reasons, including that his state was delusional, what is seen as fatalism, on religious grounds, that he failed to take moral stands and seemed strangely detached on some world issues and believed there were greater powers governing the world, even that he was a tool of alien consciousness, etc. But I fail to see how claims by Alan Edwards that his failure to disassociate himself from political followers demonstrates political views has any particular value here. Ramana was distinguished by his openness to people of all sorts of views, his tolerance, his patience even when being hit by a thief, and his tailoring his responses to their perspectives to the point where there is seeming literal contradiction. It is well known that Gandhi sent some of his associates to Ramana Maharishi and that in response to questions about independence Ramana correctly predicted India would gain independence. But Ramana's attitude is best demonstrated by when people came to him to complain about perceived unfairness in the running of his Ashram and where he replied in so many words by questioning whether they had come to reform themselves or the Ashram. His responses to the first Westerner, a policeman who saw him back in 1911, offer no evidence of the orientalism during this period claimed. I do not see why we would add such poorly supported criticism based on his failure to distance himself from some followers just to have some criticism or how it would benefit casual readers. Dseer (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of Alan Edwards' paper is in the connection he makes with neo-Vedanta, and the position given to Ramana Maharshi in this worldframe:

"Recent scholarship on Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950) follows the romanticism of hagiographical literature, presenting him as a purely spiritual and timeless figure, thus ignoring the political contours of colonial India. Scholarly literature, then, has effectively deracinated this internationally acclaimed figure from one of the most fascinating and transformative historical periods of the modern era. The current study seeks to correct ahistorical representations of Ramana Maharshi by considering the historical processes that determined his status as a Maharshi (Great Vedic Seer) and Advaitin. I aim to show that Ramana Maharshi‟s image as a timeless and purely spiritual figure actually locates him in his historical situation, and further, that his status as a Maharshi (Maharṣi) and Advaitin reflects the ways in which „the political‟ and „the spiritual‟ interacted during colonial India. This thesis will delineate the process by which Ramana‟s status as a Maharshi allowed his religious identity to shift from an unorthodox, localised, and ethnic-sectarian form to one in which he symbolised a religious authority in an orthodox and pan-Hindu way. In a broader context, then, this thesis seeks to address the following question: how, and to what extent, did colonial dynamics affect the ways that Hindus interpreted and represented their religious figures during the nationalist period? Here I will demonstrate that Ramana Maharshi represents a compelling case study in the ways in which Orientalist stereotypes about a „mystical East‟ affected the intersection of politics and religion in colonial India." (p.ii)

Alan Edwards rightly asks why Ramana Maharshi is portrayed the way he is. He concludes:

"Ramana‟s status as an Advaitin should be seen as an elitist construct that owed much to the Vedanticisation process and the interaction between nationalist discourse and Hindu spirituality – a claim that sharply contrasts the popular and scholarly assumption that it accurately reflected his transformative experience at sixteen. The Vedanticisation process relied on the initial efforts and assumptions of early Orientalists as well as the proceeding strategies of key Hindu reformers. This process produced a powerful religious symbol – Advaita Vedānta – which represented the highest doctrine of a single, homogenous religion. Apart from simultaneously functioning in a religious and political way, Advaita Vedānta followed the Maharshi construct in that it reflects the trend of Hindu reformers to conceive of Hinduism in terms of Vedic and Upaniṣadic ideals rather than in popular forms of bhakti such as Tamil Śaivism. It also speaks of the tendency of Hindu figures of the colonial period to emphasise doctrine, philosophy and a universal religious experience instead of ritual, worship and anything related to a „superstitious‟ polytheistic worldview." (p.97-98)

As you may know, neo-Vedanta portrays India as an essentially 'spiritual country', using western/Oriental images to posite India against western dominance. This is a central issue in scholarship; Alan Edwards has applied this to Ramana Maharshi. That makes him relevant. You may disagree with his conclusions, or be unaware of this larger Indian context and the process of Vedanticisation, but it does not change the fact that his thesis is written within the larger context of contemporary Indological concerns, and points to the change of Ramana's image from a Tamil Shiva bhakti into an universal Advaita Vedanta teacher. As noted before, a further reading section provides links to relevant further reading; Alan Edwards is such reading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

“Alan Edwards is such reading”, well, that is your opinion. So far I and @Dseer have a different one, as you can see.

One more time: please let others express their opinion regarding this subject. Thanks Mauna22 (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, you couldn't wait any longer for opinions, meanwhile igonoring the arguments? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the arguments? Yeah, right... How much time you think is necessary to change it? Mauna22 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mauna22 and Dseer. And I don't think the word scholarship quite applies to Edwards' jargon-laden musings. (Iddli (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC))

And why do you agree? This is a discussion, not a vote-count. Let me repeat my argument: Wikipedia "describe[s] multiple points of view." Alan Edwards contextualises Ramana Maharshi, referring to contemporary strands of thought in the scholarship on Indian religions and the questioning of Oriental notions and the need for a post-colonial approach to the understanding of India. That makes him relevant. He provides a context that the publications from devotees don't provide. See also Richard King; Orientalism and Religion, for the influence of orientalism in the understanding of Indian religions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Note also that Edwards is not being referred in the article for any remarks on any "alleged demonstration of Ramana´s political vantage point," but on the influence of Orientalism on the perception of Ramana Maharshi. Mauna22 himself acknowledges that "the claim of Alan Edwards that Ramana was not an Advaitin is well documented and is supported by testimonies." Richard King's "Orientalism and Religion" is just one of many sources on the influence of Orientalism and western religion c.q. western esotericism on Indian religions, and the western perception of those religions. See also De Michelis, The Origins of Modern Yoga. It's an influence which seems to be unknown, and therefo quite surprising, to many people. Nevertheless, given this acknowledgement by Mauna22, and the multitude of sources on these influences, Edwards notion of Orientalist influences on the perception of Ramana Maharshi, can hardly be called problematic. Focusing on Edwards' conclusions regarding Ramana's political vantage point side-tracks the discussion on what is actually being mentioned in the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'v eu st read through Edwards' conclusions again; yes, great thesis, in line with contemporary scholarship on the construction of an Indian identity based on spirituality. See also Neo-Vedanta and the publications by Rajiv Malhotra for the importance and influence of this identity.
I've adjusted the info from Edwards, emphasizing the importance of this spiritual identity in opposition to the Brirtish colonial rule. See also Swami Vivekananda, a freedom-fighter who gave an extremely popular interpretation of India's spirirtuality, and aided in this construction of an Indian identity as the center of a timeless, universal spirituality, superior to western materialism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Edwards´ thesis is slapdash, untidy, and overall its teleological, which is the opposite of academic.

The reasons why you are so concerned about other people opinions (because they might be biased) and yet you fail to see this is over me.

In spite that I already asked you three times to calm down and let people express themselves about this issue, you keep on coming up every time someone says something that is not in line with your opinion, and you repeat the same arguments over and over. You see, is not like don´t get your point, is simply that we don´t agree with it. Get over it, please. Your attitude is being a bit derogatory already.

One more time: please, let others express themselves freely Mauna22 (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop asking to "let others express themselves freely". I don't stop them from doing so, do I? You merely ask me not to respond. Talkpages are meant to provide the possibility to respond to each other. Note, again, that the issue is not Ramana Maharshi's political POV. The issue is the way(s) Ramana Maharshi was seen as the exemplary embodiment of a constructed modern Indian identity, namely as a timeless, spirituality superior country. That thesis makes sense in the context of colonialism, the ongoing struggles over Indian identity(ies), and scholarly debates over the construction of Indian identy(ies). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed you do. Look at the thread, look at how you respond to each and every commentary that is not in your line, repeating again and again the same arguments that we din´t even buy the first time you exposed them.

Such attitude is discouraging for editors. We don´t feel like change anything here because we know we will face obstinate opposition in case you don´t share our opinion. And is strange by the way because when you want to change something it seems you don´t have to ask permission to anyone.

You are acting as a PPOV pusher over and over, not only in this threat but in the whole article, and the truth is that this is not your article, and your opinion is not the only one that counts. Mauna22 (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with what Mauna22 has said above about how discouraging it is to attempt to edit the Ramana Maharshi article. I worked on this article for years. I have read dozens of books about Ramana Maharshi and used to very much enjoy collaborating with other editors on this article. However, as soon as Joshua Jonathan began editing it, any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible. After repeated attempts to continue working on the page, I finally gave up. Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him, rules the page with an iron fist, and makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors yet aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors). The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem. I, for one, would very much welcome Joshua Jonathan taking an extended break from editing (controlling) this article so other past (and, I hope, new) editors can freely contribute and collaborate. (Iddli (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC))

Just read the next section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I´m going to summarize this protracted thread (as for the situation with Joshua Jonathan see new threat below).

I suggested to remove Edward´s link and quotation on the grounds that is poorly written and teleological. Arguments about it both in support and otherwise (above) have been stated. User Iddli and user Dseer agree with the proposition while user Joshua Jonathan doesn´t.

If there´s no change here whatsoever I´ll proceed in the next few days.

Best, Mauna22 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't adressed the issue at stake here: you object to Edwards' statements on Ramana Maharshi's political stance, while that info is not in the article. The info in the article is on how Ramana Maharshi was seen as the embodiment of a timeless spirituality, which served the formation of an Indian identity in opposition to the British rulers. This thesis is in line with contemporary scholarship on India, such as Richard King and De Michelis. Objecting to this info by referring to another topic which is not in the article is a straw-argument. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Mauna22, I urge you to go ahead and make changes based on your sound and carefully reasoned arguments given higher up in this section. You clearly explained the reason for your proposed edits and I look forward to seeing them. (Iddli (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC))

No, please don't. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Three against and one for doesn't establish consensus. and if Wikipedia worked that way it would be an open invitation to sock puppetry. The article's already had that problem in the past, let's not go down that road again, alright? The quote seems fine, and the point is itself supported by additional sources. Providing historical and scholarly context is exactly what an encyclopedia article should do. Grayfell (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. As far as this page is concerned is a tyranny.

One user overrules an article for years and the moment complaints are raised those who are questioned and investigated are the ones that raised the complaints: unbelievable.Mauna22 (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Adress the arguments I raised, or we'll meet again at a notice-board. I have clearly explained, several times, why Edwards is relevant to this article: because he explains how the framing of Ramana Maharshi fits into the development of an Indian counter-identity. This argument has nowhere been answered.

I have also noted several times that the info in the article is on that part of Edwards' thesis, while you want to remove it because of Edwards' comments on Ramana Maharshi's supposed political stance (which I, too, find unconvincing). This concern too has not been answered.

Instead, the lot of you use terms like;

• "just an opinion with no data or evidence to support it" - incorrect; the whole thesis provides his analysis;
• "fallacies" that's a personal opinion;
• "jargon-laden musings" - what's the jargon?
• "teleological" - that one is really interesting, and I'd like to hear more about this, apart from our disagreements: what do you mean with teleological?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"I have clearly explained, several times, why Edwards is relevant to this article: because he explains how the framing of Ramana Maharshi fits into the development of an Indian counter-identity. This argument has nowhere been answered."

Take a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL that sums it all up, provided you are willing to understnad such evident case, which you are not, of course...Mauna22 (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It sums it up indeed: " Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless." I've explained, several times, why Edwards is relevant. I've also provided the context. You still haven't answered to this argument. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you admitted that the thesis uses fallacies: "...is a fallacy. Well, we agree on that."

What kid of academic rigor can we expect from a thesis that uses fallacies to elaborate its propositions? Mauna22 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you should read the thesis, instead of picking out one proposition you don't agree with. Read the quotes above again from the intro, to understand what it is about: "Ramana's status as an Advaitin should be seen as an elitist construct that owed much to the Vedanticisation process and the interaction between nationalist discourse and Hindu spirituality – a claim that sharply contrasts the popular and scholarly assumption that it accurately reflected his transformative experience at sixteen." The main topic of the trhesis is not Ramana Maharshi's political stance, but the way his "image" was constructed. I can really recommand Richard King's "Orientalism and religion" to you, or De Michelis "The history of modern yoga," to get a grip on the scholarshop Edwards is referring to. It is for this context and scholarship that Edwards is relevant. Maybe you should also read something on social-construcionism, and Michel Foucault, to understand how our "reality" is a constructed reality. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The wikipedia rule on the use of a Master's thesis as a source states that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." This much debated (here) Alan Edwards thesis does not appear to fit that condition. I tried googling Alan Edwards; thesis and there is no evidence of it influencing anything significant or scholarly. Its influence appears to be limited to a disagreement on this page! (Iddli (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

@Iddli: fair point, thanks. Consider, though, also this:

• "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."
• "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context."
• "if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" - there is no scholarly research on Ramana Maharshi, except fort he two articles by Lucas. That makes his thesis exceptional: one of the few instances of serious academic interest in Ramana Maharshi.

As far as I can see, this source is reliable for the statement being made. It elaborates on existing scholarship, which it ecplicitly mentions. To reject it purely on the ground of it being a master-thesis, without weighting it's relevance and assessing its reliablility for the statement beong made, is precisely the kind of "legalistic" approach you reject. I think it's worth to consider that merits of inclusion. And if it doesn't fit there for this reason (for which I would like to see arguments, based on this scholarship on which this scholarship elaborates), then it can still be included in the "External links" section, for the same reason already stated: Edwards provides a broader view on Ramana Maharshi's popularity. But to repeat: fair point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Teleological

Yeah, "teleological" is an unusual description here, I'm also curious about that. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. I already gave a clear example of that, but anyway, I´ll repeated, and I´ll try to be more clear.

Bear in mind this to facts:

• Fact 1: Ramana Maharshi was known for being silent.
• Fact 2: Nowhere in the classical biographies on RM would you find any reference to a political POV of his, and which is more: you wouldn´t even find Ganapati Muni´s political views in those books (it seems the people who wrote them where not concerned with that).

Now, read this pearl of wisdom:

“The longevity of their relationship, coupled with no available evidence that Ramana attempted to distance himself from Ganapati or his political followers, demonstrates that Ramana was at least sympathetic to, if not supportive of, Ganapati‟s political agenda.”

Which comes down to:

RM never rebuffed GM, therefore RM supported or at least was sympathetic whit the political views of GM.

Yes: absolutely teleological. This is just an example, there are more, and what is worse, he elaborates further his theories based in fallacies like this one (that stands for messy and slapdash to say the least).

Alan Edwards, like Joshua Jonathan (are they the same person?) sees what he whants to see, and he builds his thesis with an agenda in mind. He wants us to believe there´s an evil scheme to make India look as the holiest country on earth, and he has no remorse in twisting facts and using clumsy fallacies to demonstrate so.

Did you notice how many times he “demonstrates this and that”? Have you ever read a thesis with such self-references? Is not just that he is being teleological: is it absolutely graceless at doing so!

If after reading the thesis and this thread as well you really fail to see how politically driven this thesis is I don´t know what else to say.

Best, Mauna22 (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Teleological: "Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal.[1] For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for." I'm sorry, but I utterly fail to see how Edwards is "teleological."
• No, we're not the same person. Remember WP:GOODFAITH.
• "He wants us to believe there´s an evil scheme to make India look as the holiest country on earth" - if you had any serious knowledge of the recent scholarshop on the history of India, then you would know that this "evil scheme" is exactly what neo-Vedantins and other freedom-fighters were doing: presenting India as "the holiest country on earth." See, again, Richard King, just for example. Or Edwards' thesis. This is common academic knowledge, not some sort of fringe theory, as you seem to suppose. It was not an "evil scheme," by the way, but a sincere reaction to western oppression, and a elaboration of western views of India as the bearer of a timeless wisdom. Indian independence, and Indian identities, may be irrelevant for you, as a westerner, but they are absolutely relevant for Indians, and for the understanding of the framing of Indian religions. If you had more experience at India-related articles, you would know that.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if what you say were true (and I´m not saying it is), it doesn´t keep it from being teleological. You have a serious problem of reading comprehension Mauna22 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're using the wrong term. That makes it indeed hard to understand what you mean with "teleological." What you mean is that the reasoning "RM never rebuffed GM, therefore RM supported or at least was sympathetic with the political views of GM" is a fallacy. Well, we agree on that. I don't find that argument convincing either. But I still fail to see how that is "teleological." Going through the fallacy-page, don't you mean something like affirming the consequent? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification for JJ:

No. Affirming the consequence is what you´ve been doing since the Alan Edwards section was opened:

• If Edwards thesis´ is correct when it says X then is relevant for the article
• Edwards thesis is relevant for the article
• Therefore, Edwards thesis is correct when it says X

Note that X = “Ramana Maharshi´s case is a good example of how neo-Vedantins and other freedom-fighters present India as the holiest country on earth”

As a suggestion -for both sections of the thread- I would recommend you to take your time and re-read them as many times as you need, take another look at the definition of teleology you yourself posted... whatever. Read carefully, please. It is pointless that you repeat over and over the same arguments adding paragraphs over and over and question this and that when you dodn´t even bother yourself getting other people´s arguments to begin with. Is really unproductive.

Best regards, Mauna22 (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting way of reasoning you've got. I'm trying 'to get it', but I don't, I'm afraid. The definition of teleology I quoted says "Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal." So, did Ramana Maharshi exist for a certain purpose? Or does Edwards' thesis exist for a certain purpose? Or do you mean to say that my reasoning (as you perceive it) is teleological? No, you wrote "Edwards´ thesis is slapdash, untidy, and overall its teleological". So, what "something" exactly did exist according to Edwards, serving which "end, purpose, or goal" ? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I took another look at affirming the consequent. It gives the following example:

"If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.

Bill Gates is rich

Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox."

You're giving a qualified proposition in the first line: "If Edwards thesis´ is correct when it says X then is relevant for the article." No wonder your logic is so hard to follow. A proper example along this line of reasoning would be:

• If Edwards thesis´ gives an explanation for the presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin, then it is relevant for the article
• Edwards thesis is relevant for the article
• Therefore, Edwards thesis´ gives an explanation for the presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin

I think that it's abundantly clear that this is not a proper example of affirming the consequent, nor is it a proper representation of my argument. My argument is:

• If Edwards thesis´ gives an explanation for the presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin, then it is relevant for the article
• Edwards thesis´ gives an explanation for the presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin (elaborating on, and in line with, contemporary scholarship on the construction of Indian identities and the role of spirituality in the construction of those identities)
• Therefore, Edwards thesis´ is relevant for the article.

Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You forgot what X means. No wonder your find trouble gettint it Mauna22 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A shared working relationship and agenda, limited actual knowledge of the subject in this case and unfortunately no desire to seriously discuss how much to highlight an obscure thesis. Of course. Best to just put NPOV tag on the article because consensus is impossible. Not that the Edwards reference concerns me much.

There is a published view that Advaita and "enlightenment" itself is a fraud created by possession by power hungry beings, specifically referencing Ramana Maharshi. That view deserves equal treatment as far as being referenced. To quote the author:

Wall of text

Consider this quote by the currently popular guru, Ramana Maharshi: “Repetition aloud of His name is better than praise. Better still is its faint murmur. But the best is repetition within the mind — and that is meditation. Better than such broken thought is its steady and continuous flow like the flow of oil or of a perennial stream.” Ramana Maharshi’s statement represents mantra meditation’s goal: a state where the mind is timelessly identified with surrender to the name of one’s god – identical with the god himself. The mind itself has become self-negation at the feet of the deity. Empty of original thought and dynamic desire, the “liberated” person’s ego is dissolved: the very thing that made him or her human. All that is left is a mind-body shell, a meat-robot, that moves through life as a surrendered instrument of some greater will. I suggest the greater will is not that of the Infinite. It is the will of the god who has taken the place of one’s mind... Does this sound like possession? It surely appears to be. Think of all the gurus you’ve met with their palpable shakti. An energy so real no one who experiences it can deny it. What is that light in their eye, a light beyond this world? Whose is that power they touch you with, embrace you with? Is it the shakti of Brahman, the light of pure consciousness? Or is it the power of Kali or one of her friends? Gurus often say they are the embodiment of Shiva, Kali, or some other god. Why do we not take them at their word? I would like to suggest that mantra meditation turns humans into zombies who serve the agenda of the gods. That agenda is procurement of more humans and more human energy. This explains the common phenomenon of proselytizing by the religious, including fundamentalist Christians, TMers, and disciples of other varieties. Servants of “God” or the gods feel a driving need to bring in more recruits. The god that moves through them fills them with this zeal, as a hungry stomach fills the mind with an overwhelming need to procure dinner. There are no gods, in the sense the gods would have us think of them. No one has been designated by the Infinite to control creation and administer the laws of nature. The sun shines by itself as an entity with its own consciousness. The rain and wind don’t need a god to direct them; they move where they will in harmony with their fellow elements. All things are children of the Infinite, spirits or egos in their own unique right, expressing in physical form and also in astral dimensions. The gods are spirits/egos like everybody else. Most of the time they dwell on astral planes, which is why human senses normally don’t perceive them. According to ancient records, they have visited the earth in ages past in physical forms of their own, as entities from the stars. They are no more divine than a ghost, no more cosmic than you or I, and no more entitled or intended to run the universe than any other gang of warlords might be. Somehow they’ve gained control of this planet, and have held that control at least since the beginning of recorded human history. But that is no reason to think the Infinite wants it that way, or that life needs to continue that way. True empowerment is not the Indian concept of enlightenment. It is knowing what we are and living from there. We are spirit: individual and eternal, moving within the consciousness of That which created, sustains and pervades all life. Knowing this is not difficult. It only requires putting attention on that which is beneath the content of thought. Acting from this place of empowerment is natural: we can ordain reality from that quantum level. Everyone can do it. Everyone is equally powerful moving and creating in the depths of their own consciousness. Unfortunately, people rarely do that, though, as the mass hypnosis that governs human life convinces us that karma, fate or the will of God runs the world, that we as individuals have little direct control over what happens to us. The gods are the purveyors of this global hypnosis. It serves their agenda of control. True liberation does not mean rising above the illusion of ourselves as egos. It means rising above the illusion that as egos we are cut off from the powerhouse of creation. That as individuals we are something less than pure, eternal, powerful spirits – in our own right, very much gods. Gods with a global case of amnesia. The “enlightened” have surrendered their personhood to the deities who control their meditations. Their bliss is the euphoric stupor which their appeased deities grant them as reward. The words, the thoughts, the desires of the enlightened are not their own any longer, but those of their controlling god. The word “zombie” is appropriate because of its meaning as the walking dead. But all is not lost for such people. No one can keep the human soul enslaved against its will. An act of personal empowerment, of willfully recalling one’s ego, must surely destroy enslavement by any possessing entity. One can recall surrendered pieces of one’s being as a magnet can recall iron filings. Native American traditions speak of our ability to do just this, calling back the parts of our lost personhood. When people cease to surrender their energy and spirit to those who call themselves gods, the deceivers will lose their power over this dimension. They will shrink back to “normal size,” entities responsible for themselves like everybody else. Our world will know a freedom, creativity, harmony and joy it has never demonstrated in its history, because interdimensional manipulation will cease. The suffering on this planet, god-inspired and god-feeding, will dwindle and disappear. The need to kill to eat will no longer exist. Sickness, aging and death will have no substructure. Each wonderful created being – animal, human or astral – will thrive on the power of the Infinite source within itself, and victim/tyrant relationships, which ran the planet for eons, will fade into thin air. Living will become what surely the Infinite intended in Its original vision for the universe: a symphony of minds, not a competition; a tapestry of spirits, not a hierarchy; a garden of consciousness, not a painful struggle. When I hear “the enlightened” excuse all the atrocities of this world by saying that in their exalted perception, everything is “perfect” just as it is, I hear “fraud.” The God I perceive in the depths of my being is not a God who is content with fathers raping infants, animals being ripped apart alive, or human sorrow so great only suicide can quell it. This kind of world is not perfect, and anyone who sees it as such has something seriously wrong with them. If the gods were really beneficent and powerful, they would not operate a world that runs like this. When their mouthpieces and procurers tell us this world is just as it should be – that shows you the true nature of the gods. https://brontebaxter.wordpress.com/mantra-meditation-reveals-a-hidden-agenda-are-the-gods-alive-and-well-and-working-towards-the-new-world-order.

Dseer (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If this tl:dr copypasta is supposed to be some sort of "Modest Proposal" it demonstrates both poor faith and poor understanding of sources and scholarship on Wikipedia. If you seriously think this should be included in the article, the answer is no, because it's WP:SPS discussing a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You're taking a quote out of context; you should also mention what this context is. It's about TM, and the critique is directed against TM. It may be interesting on its own merits, but it's not comparable to Edwards, who provides a context (one; there are several) for the popularity of Ramana Maharshi. Et cetera. You're bypassing the arguments here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Questions cropping up"

Moved from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Hi Joshua. That quote is misleading and therefore incorrect. I spotted it yesterday and couldn't figure it out. It contradicts everything else that Bhagavan says. Upon arriving in Arunachala he didn't even know what the concepts of Advaita, Dvaita, and all the other technical terms were. He had no intellectual knowledge of them and he says that on numerous occasions. In fact, it's even cited in other parts of the wikipedia article. Just read the Acquaintance with Hindu Scriptures section. It's impossible that he himself had these questions crop up when he didn't know what these things were nor had any personal need to put his experience into words. That was for other people. Please unrevert your revert. I emailed David Godman about it, to double check, when I saw it, because it was so odd. Here is what he had to say about it in an email to me. He sources a different book:

It's from G. V. Subbaramayya's book, Sri Ramana Reminsicences. The full quote is:

"The next day Sri Bhagavan made a revealing declaration about Himself. He said, “Even in the beginning I realised that I am not the body. After I came to Arunachala all sorts of questions cropped up whether I am one with the All-pervading Reality or different, whether that Reality is Non-dualism, Dualism or qualified Non-dualism etc. Even the idea ‘I am Brahman’ is only a thought and is not Atma-nishtha (Self-abidance). That one should give up all thought and abide in the Self is the conclusion of all religions. Even Nirvikalpa Samadhi is only a stage in ‘Sadhana’ (practice). It implies going into Samadhi and rising from Samadhi. For me there was no necessity at all to do any Sadhana.”"

Taken out of context it might appear that Bhagavan himself is asking the questions, but he is actually referring to questions that are being posed to him.

Bhagavan never needed or used technical vocabulary to define or explain his experience of himself to himself. He said once that he didn't even know what the word Brahman meant until he read it in a book in Tiruvannamalai. The experience was there, but there was never any desire to express it in words or concepts. It was his visitors who wanted him to express it using terminological frameworks that they had read in books.

If you really wish, I will find other sources that contradict and correct this misquote and then remove it, but it would be simpler just to revert the edit. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bodhadeepika: great! I knew you would come with a very good explanation. Even mailing David Godman; that's cool! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: thanks Joshua! always a pleasure collaborating with you! :) Bodhadeepika (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Fo the record: I've self-reverted, as you've noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan Watts

Seems a shame to remove it, as it's a great example of the description of a guru, and of Ramana Maharshi, and from a western context by a prominent western philosophy/spiritual lecturer of the 1960s, who was a huge part of the Western spiritual movement. But if it's not wikifriendly, then I don't know... Bodhadeepika (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bodhadeepika. My point is that the quote is rather anecdotical. More relevant, in the context of that paragraph, would be how Alan Watts helped to popularize Ramana Maharshi. The quote as such does not explain this. The quote itself is rather long:

"When you're in the way of waking up, and finding out who you really are, you meet a character called a guru ... You know Sri Ramana Maharshi, that great Hindu sage of modern times? People used to come to him and say, "Master, who was I in my last incarnation?", as if that mattered. And he would say "Who is asking the question?" And he'd look at you and say, basically, "Go right down to it. You're looking at me, you're looking out, and you're unaware of what's behind your eyes. Go back in and find out who you are, where the question comes from, why you ask." And if you've looked at a photograph of that man, I have a gorgeous photograph of him; and you look in those - I walk by it every time I go out of the front door. And I look at those eyes, and the humor in them; the lilting laugh that says "Oh come off it, man (laughs). Shiva, I recognize you. When you come to my door and you say 'I'm so-and-so,' I say, 'Ha ha, what a funny way God has come on today.'""

I've tried to abbreviate it, but it only makes sense as a whole quote. But then, it's too long, I think. The quote can be split in four:

• seekers meet gurus
• Alan Watts calls Ramana Maharshi a great guru
• an example of Ramana Maharshi's way of responding
• a personal impression of photographs of Ramana Maharsi

So, I personally don't think that it is suitable description of a guru; it's rather a somehwat associative, personal 'stream of thought'. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User Joshua Jonathan´s conduct regarding Ramana Maharshi´s article

article talk pages are not places to discuss individual editor's conduct; please take to user talk pages or one of the WP:Dispute Resolution forums. NE Ent 22:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think is a shame to open a thread like this, but I guess is time to do something about it. User Iddli summarized the situation in another thread (above): “...as soon as Joshua Jonathan began editing it [Raman Maharshi´s Article], any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible.[...] Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him, rules the page with an iron fist, and makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors yet aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors). The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem...” I utterly endorse Iddli´s commentary. I would like to know what is the best course of action in a situation like this, and would appreciate other editors counsel and advice. Best, Mauna22 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Start with reading Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Included options are one of the notice-boards, like WP:ANI or Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, where you can explain your grievances, with a list of diffs to support your stance. You can also contact an administrator, like User:Doug Weller or SpacemanSpiff. Otherwise, you may consider some self-reflection: why is it that you want your preferred edits to prevail? To answer some of the points of above: "any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible" See the thread above, Talk:Ramana Maharshi#Questions cropping up, which contradicts this statement. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Journey to Tiruvannamalai, Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Stillness - samadhi, and Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Jung-quote for some other examples. "Impossible" seems to be a misplaced qualification. See, on the other hand, Talk:Ramana Maharshi#Bhakti before Awakening, where I wrote, in response to Manua22, "I think this is relevant info; would you like to add it to the article?", to which Mauna22 responded "How come you are so eager to change something when it coincides with your point of view and how, in (sic) the other hand, you are so resistant to make changes when proposals do not coincide with it?" Not exactly an example of a collaborative spirit, was it? It's in a thread where Prodigyhk and I agreed after some discussion; "Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him" - I've made over 500 edits to this page; most of them were additions of info, and meticulous work on details such as the publications. I also provided sources for unsourced info provided by Iddli. A good example of collaboration and constructive improvements; "rules the page with an iron fist" - that's a subjective statement, which needs explanation and explication; "makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors" - the normal procedure is to edit the page. When you object, you can start a discussion at the talkpage. If you think I've failed here somehow, you'll have to provide diffs; "aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda" - there's a long series of edits I haven't touched upon, nor objected to. In case I've got objections, I do voice them; that's the normal procedure. Regarding the term "aggressive," it seems an apt qualification of your own tone, as exemplified by your response quoted above, and this thread itself; "his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors)" - if you mean that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of webpages written by devotees, yes, that's an agenda - which fits in with the objctives of Wikipedia. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 3#Neutrality, where this issue was raised before, by another editor; "The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem..." - a talkpage is intended to discuss the article; looking back I see a lot of discussion. If the problem is that I don't agree with some of your edits or POV, no that problem won't be solved if you expect me to simply agree with you. Nevertheless, many discussions have been resolved at the talkpage, as can be seen at the talkpage-threads which I linked to at "problematic." Regarding opening this thread: the talkpage is meant to discuss the article, not the behaviour of other editors. Opening a thread like this does not seem to be the best avenue. A better way would be to adress me personally, instead of simply talk over my head to others. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I brought my complaints to the Notice Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joshua_Jonathan_disruptive_editing_on_Ramana_Maharshi.C2.B4s_article Mauna22 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I'll have a look. NB: don't forget to mention that I answered your query above, ointing you the way to the notice-board. Another example of collaboration, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I have been silent too long myself. I have watched this article deteriorate and must agree 110% about Jonathan's arrogant, arbitrary and non-collaborative approach to impose his evident personal agenda as to what is relevant and what is not. I see no evidence of particular expertise on the subject but only a personal agenda. "Lets talk?" has no meaning when is it is just words, Jonathan. Enough is enough. Dseer (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC) As a typical example of the damage to which this non-collaborative editor Jonathan is willing to do to push his views, see this statement he recently back put in: "Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised [sic] in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students.{{sfn|lucas|2011|p=94}" That is of course total opinion that "neo-Advaita" conforms accurately to Ramana's teachings since Ramana even had a problematic relationship with traditional Advaita, and it is a claim widely disputed as well as conflicting with the rest of the article. A close reading of Ramana's words in context shows little evidence that would support such a claim at best. Poonja himself dismissed the neo-Advaitan's claims of enlightenment in an interview with David Godman. We need an end to iron-handed editing by fiat and genuine consensus building. Which will require reigning in this rogue editor. Dseer (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC) References I took an impartial look at the history of this article, and I agree with and support Joshua Jonathan. Dseer, you might be a single purpose account. VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Noted, Victoria. Unlike you I provided a specific example of distorted editing which I can back up with references. Unlike you I stick to areas of expertise as well. Not that I really think Wikipedia will do anything; unfortunately. Dseer (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Improving this article

I would like to see this article focus more tightly on its subject, Ramana Maharshi. When we start adding sections like "Indian Context" and "Western Context", we open a real can of worms. An example of this is the quotes by Jung and the interpretation of these quotes (under "Indian Context". Jung is certainly a famous figure and the quotes are from legitimate sources so one could argue that of course it is fair to include them. But this invites an expansion of this section of the article to include the deeper reasons why Jung so carefully avoided meeting Ramana Maharshi (for Jung's fear of another mental breakdown, and Jung's possible fear of being exposed as a fraudulent guru if he were to stand before a genuine guru, etc). The way the article currently reads, it appears that Jung is rather loftily dismissing Ramana Maharshi as not being worth visiting, when, quite likely, Jung was simply trying to defend his own rather puzzling behavior and conceal his fear of recurring mental illness. Yet do we really want to get into the whole business of Jung's psychosis and vulnerabilities in the middle of an article on Ramana Maharshi? My own preference would be to drop these sections. The Jung details don't really provide a "context"; Jung's avoidance of Ramana Maharshi and the complex reasons for this avoidance say a great deal about Jung, and very little about Ramana Maharshi. Here is an interesting analysis of this: http://wasylnimenko.org/jung-and-the-holy-men-of-india-yoga-and-advice-about-eastern-spiritual-disciplines/

This brings me to a second point. How can we collaborate on what should and what should not be included in the article? I do not think the criteria should simply be that a source can be found for it. I think the main point of the article should be to provide a clear, readable description of Ramana Maharshi.

I propose deleting the "Context" sections as, in my opinion, they detract rather than add to the article. Some of the content is too general to add value ("Since the 1970s western interest in Asian religions has seen a rapid growth."), some is provocative and controversial ("Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students."), and some --like the Jung part I mentioned above) -- is misleading because it accepts Jung's "cover story" at face value and completely leaves out what were likely the real reasons for Jung avoiding Ramana Maharshi. (Iddli (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

So you dismiss a study published by the New Zealand Asian Studies Society as being too flimsy, but propose a personal blog post as a reason to equivocate about commentary by Carl Jung? Come on now. A case can be made here, and these are interesting points, but this needs to be supported by sources and presented as opinions, not just removed because it has been contested. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia absolutely should supply context. Removing the entire section would reduce the neutrality of the article. A description of Ramana Maharshi without cultural and academic context is a bad description. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not just Jung, it's also Heinrich Zimmer. You're trying to question the relevance of information by questioning the persoanl motives of one the authors. That's poor rhetorics, based on speculation, and ignoring the other author. The relevance of these sections is that they do mention the context(s) of Ramana Maharshi: Tamil culture, Indian notions of holiness, Indian nationalism, western perceptions of Asian wisdom, the growth of western interest in Asian religions. People like Ramana Maharshi don't exist in a vacuum; that's exactly what's being pointed out here, on multiple levels. An isolated picture of a perfect, holy man, without providing context, is a perpetuation of a limited perception. That's not what Wikipedia is for. This quote, from the lead of Encyclopédie, is insightfull:

"The Encyclopédie is most famous for representing the thought of the Enlightenment. According to Denis Diderot in the article "Encyclopédie", the Encyclopédie's aim was "to change the way people think". He and the other contributors advocated for the secularization of learning away from the Jesuits."

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, I was not proposing using a personal blog for any wikipedia purpose. I put the link because it is a good description of the context of the Jung quotes and I thought people following this discussion might find it interesting. There are complying sources if the need arises to add in the context for the Jung quotes (listed at the end of that blog post) and the blog post itself was published in The Mountain Path in a shorter form.

My real point is that the whole business of "context" is really layers of context which can (in my opinion) bog down the article and detract from the subject. If there were a way to accurately and briefly sum up the context, then I would agree with you about supplying it -- but I don't think there is. I think the "context" sections provide an opportunity for people to push points of view and introduce controversial topics into an article that is not served by this. And I fail to see how Jung deciding not to visit Ramana Maharshi really does establish any context for Ramana Maharshi. As for the claim that Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been popularized as Neo-Advaita ... first of all, this is false. His name is sometimes used in an attempt to add an air of legitimacy to certain teachers but his actual teachings have not been popularized by Neo-Advaitin teachers. This is a meaningful distinction. It is his name, and often his photograph, with a vase of flowers beside it, not his actual teachings, which are made use of and popularized by Neo-Advaitin teachers. And second of all, the fact that there are various teachers holding satsangs and claiming to be "in Ramana's lineage" does not establish a context for Ramana Maharshi who died long before the first of these satsangs was ever held. (Iddli (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

I remember vaguely that Jung was initially used for this quote:

"He is genuine and, in addition to that, something quite phenomenal. In India, he is the whitest spot in a white space. What we find in the life and teachings of Sri Ramana is the purest of India."

It was quoted in "The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi," but unfaithfull to the original version. It's a nice illustration of the construction of Ramana Maharshi as a timeless spiritual hero. When it turns out that Jung was actually critical, the quote apparently isn't so usefull anymore.

You write "I fail to see how Jung deciding not to visit Ramana Maharshi really does establish any context for Ramana Maharshi"; the text in the article is not about not visiting the ashram, but about Indian notions of holiness. Which is clear from this sentence: "According to Zimmer and Jung, Ramana's appearance as a mauni, a silent saint absorbed in samadhi, fitted into pre-existing Indian notions of holiness."

The neo-Advaita part has been discussed over and over again. This claim has been made by many people, including critics, but also Lucas, who published in an academic hournal. You're trying to divorce Ramana Maharshi himself from his influence; well, you can't. It's another illustration of the perpetuation of the image of Ramana Maharshi as an isolated phenomenon. And you seem to miss the obvious question: why is Ramana Maharshi being used to legitimise these teachers? Precisely because of this 'isolatedness' and this pre-occupation with timeless Asian wisdom. That's why context matters. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)