|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nisargadatta Maharaj article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is written in Indian English (colour, realise, travelled, aeroplane), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 11 July 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.|
The extremely long quote is probably a copyright violation. WP policy only allows short quote, maybe a paragraph or two. In any case, it would be better to write a summary of his teaching then simply an extract... —Hanuman Das 20:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- Not so. Copyright allows for significant extracts, and 8 short paragraphs out of a 180 page book to illustrate someones views without distortion, for educational purposes, is not considered unfair use. (See WP:FU -- General & Text).
- A summary is probably not a bad idea. The difficulty is, that sometimes for a biographical article, the person's own words are important, and that's probably more so when the person is talking about matters which to most people are extremely non-intuitive and poorly understood.
- I have reverted the edit and put the quotes back, for now, can we discuss here. FT2 (Talk) 09:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
You are talking about fair use, I presume? The key word in fair use is use. You are perfectly correct that the individual quotes are short enough to be considered fair use. The problem is that there is no discussion of the quotes and what they illustrate. By themselves like you have them, they could very well be considered a copyvio. If you intersperse them with even an equal amount of introduction, discussion, commentary, and/or analysis, then this are certainly fair use. One of the key factors in deciding fair use is what is the proportion of quoted text to original commentary and analysis. The use of 100% quote in the teachings section would probably not be considered fair use by a court. Most people don't realize this and think fair use lets them quote short pieces without restriction, but the "educational" exception means that you must be including your own text in order to educate people about the material you are quoting. HTH. I'll leave it there for now for you to add original discussion/analysis of equal or greater length than the quotes. —Hanuman Das 12:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I am a bit busy the next few days, but will try to make time to do so. If I forget feel free to drop me a talk page message though FT2 (Talk) 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Glad you understand. —Hanuman Das 01:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I am going to start working on a summary of his teachings, so that it is just not a set of quotes... Sethie 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
There seem to be a few misconceptions in the text. It says: "For Nisargadatta, the Self is not one super-entity which knows independently, regardless of things; there is no such super-entity, no Creator with infinite intellect, no God as such. What is, is the "total acting" (or functioning) of the Ultimate/Absolute Reality along the infinite varying forms in manifestation. This Absolute Reality is identical to The Self."
I have studied his writings for a long time, and I cannot agree to this point of view. Nisargadatta never said that there is no GOD. He just said, that you have to differentiate between you own concept of God in your mind and GOD as such, the knower of beingness. The knower of beingness knows beingness and beingness can only be known by itself when it is being touched by perfect matter.
Of course beingness is one. The problem is, that Nisargadatta is not interested in occult powers and therefore it may seem that he cannot really get access to every thought and every form of individual consciousness. He even hints at this once, where he says, that with training it is possible to get access to anyone and anybody. So potentially there is the creator with infinite intellect, but the importance of the manifested goes towards zero, and therefore GOD is almost not aware of it and it seems unreal. Of course the Supreme Self is GOD, what else, and of course the Self is at the source of everything, but it is like watching planet earth from outer space: Even the Himalayas look perfectly flat from there, and so it may seem that God didn't do it. The Self simply makes everything possible while staying aloof, but the Self is also at the heart and soul of anyone and anybody. So it is at the same time the ALL and the individual.
My mother language is not english, so I prefer not to directly reedit the article, but please think about it. Thanks. --Abraxas23 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
OSHO is mentioned Disciples of Nisargadatta Maharaj this is what osho has to say about it
Osho on Nisargadatta Maharaj
There was a man in Bombay, Nisargadatta Maharaj. Nobody knew this big name; he was known to the masses as "Beedie Baba" because he was continuously smoking beedies. You can find in every village such kinds of beedie babas. I think India has seven hundred thousand villages and each village must have at least one; more is possible. And Amrito wrote a few days ago to me, because another young Dutchman became very much involved with Beedie Baba... The man seems to be very sincere, but the trouble is that the people who come from the West have a very childlike heart, very trusting, and they are unaware that in India spirituality is just a routine. Everybody talks about great things and their lives are as ugly as possible. When Beedie Baba said that he would speak only to this young Dutchman, naturally his ego must have felt tremendously vast. The crowd that surrounded Beedie Baba was also of the same quality... rickshaw wallahs waiting for their passengers, sitting by the side of Beedie Baba. And when he said he would not speak to anybody unless it was this Dutchman... So he spoke to the Dutchman, who has now compiled books on Beedie Baba. Now in India it is almost parrot-like, but to the Westerner it seems to be a tremendous revelation -- when Beedie Baba said, "Aham brahmasmi; I am God, I am that" the young Dutchman immediately wrote a book: I AM THAT! Because for the West, spirituality is a foreign affair, just as for the East, science is a foreign affair.
Even the poorest beggar knows more about metaphysics, about great ideologies... And when the Western man comes -- he may be well educated but his education is of science, his education is of logic, his education makes him a great intellectual. But in the heart he remains very naive. Then any Beedie Baba, any idiot can make a great impact on him. This Dutch man lived for months together with Beedie Baba. He does not mention his well-known name, Beedie Baba; he mentions only his legal name, Nisargadatta Maharaj. He has written many books on Nisargadatta Maharaj; he has made Nisargadatta famous all over the world. I have looked through those books -- sheer nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Osho is not the final authority on Nisargadatta Maharaj. There are enough issues with Osho, his teachings, and his communes to fill books upon books. Who gave Osho the authority to speak about other teachers? At least Maharaj continued to live in a slum while Osho lived like a king in the West and in India. There are many anecdotes of Maharaj having kicked out Osho devotees, people wearing orange clothes but having no understanding of what that meant. Perhaps the above excerpt from Osho was posted by one such person who was kicked out of Maharaj's satsang. The naive Dutchmen that Osho speaks of are professors of philosophy at world-renowned universities. The guy who is behind Maharaj's book "I am That" is Maurice Frydman, someone who spent years around Ramana Maharshi. Many Ramana devotees have spent time with Maharaj, including author David Godman. Their anecdotes are all over the web. Check out Maharaj's satsangs and writings for yourself and then decide. Don't rely on the twisted words of a twisted teacher such as Osho. Why did so many of Osho's devotees end up with Papaji? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is said he was born in Hanuman’s birthday of 1897, and on account of that he received the name Maruti (one of Hanuman's names). That was during the first full-moon of Spring: April 17, 1897 at 11:46 a.m. LMT (time of the full-moon, not Maruti's actual time of birth).Orlando F 23:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I Am That
I wondered for some time how it was that there was not an “I Am That” page in Wikipedia. Well, actually it was (had been), but was deleted. I wrote about the subject in the talk section of that very page only to find that the commentary was instantly removed because it was done on a talk section of a deleted page (surprise surprise!). It seems that according to Wikipedia´s standards it is irrelevant. So... I would like to know what the criteria of relevance is in here. I mean: there´s a Wikipedia page for each and every chapter of “Lost”, there´s even one for “Hannah Montana: The Movie”, not to mention tons of pages about books of writers they are barely known in their own countries. “I Am That” in the other hand has been credited for almost every living teacher on the spiritual track, not to mention those purely hindu or on the Advaita marga.
In fact the person, Nisargadatta himself, is of little relevance (and this is the most strange point for me here). What has been influential for almost four decades now was the book, not the man. I think you should allow the page to be build, it is relevant enough. And if it´s not possible well... I think it would be sensible deleting this page and (re-)create the one on “I Am That”.
- I agree I Am That should have it's own article. It is a spiritual classic which has, for example, 854,000 results on Google web, 54,700 results on Google Books and even 219 results on Google Scholar. Some ideological POV obsessives have been active in deleting stuff in areas like these that shouldn't have been deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello again! Still waiting for answers. It´s strange you know, if I I try to do something in that page (and I mean the talk section!) I have and instant reply, even if that means the comment to be erased. When I ask for meanings and anwsers if seems nobody is there. What´s the criteria now, did it change lately? Am I allowed to build the page? Anybody there?--Mauna22 (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank You Prodigyhk. As soon as I have the time I´ll do it --Mauna22 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)