Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

replace with draft article

hi all, I propose to replace the current article on Ramarkishna with Draft/Ramakrishna, which is more elaborate. We can then work to improve the language and content of that article.

Ramashray 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No way. The draft article is not from a neutral pont of view. It incorporates material that is widely disputed. This material must be rendered neutral before it is incorporated. --goethean ॐ 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have inserted the text from the draft article under the section "Traditional biography". If anyone has problems with my edits and additions, let's discuss it here on that talk page. --goethean ॐ 16:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have some problems! The very first line…was a Bengali religious leader is jarring. Just because he was born in Bengal you don’t call him Bengali. That smacks of Indian parochialism. Ramakrishna was a universalistic as was Jesus and Buddha. At the most one can say that he was born in Bengal (give the name of the village, if you like). Secondly the term Traditional has been (ab)used in all the five paras. Do you mean that the life story is not authentic? What are those events that you consider not authentic? Christopher Isherwood says that “Ramakrishna's life, being comparatively recent history, is well documented. In this respect, it has the advantage over the lives of other earlier phenomena of a like nature.” If it is so, did you compare with the well documented books available? 61.0.164.101 12:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find your first point very odd. He was Bengali. Yes, Jesus was universalistic, but the Wikipedia entry on him starts out — correctly — by calling him Jewish.

As for your second, I agree with Isherwood that Ramakrishna's life is very well documented, especially compared to that of Jesus or the Buddha. But what we have here are essentially stories, mostly promulgated by partisans — Ramakrishna's followers. It's too much to expect those with a physicalistic mentality to accept them as fact. So I labelled them as traditional accounts — stories. --goethean ॐ 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, calling Bengali and calling Jewish are not the same. The former is based on Language, the latter, on Race. That's why I say, simply call him Hindu. Yes, now I understand why you labelled the stories as Traditional. But couldn't you find anything authentic? Why don't you add some authentic events if well documented works are available was my refrain. Otherwise, why one should be interested to read only simple hearsay stories in Wikipedia? For that I can go to Geocities sites. 61.0.164.186 01:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that your point about Ramakrishna being Bengali is completely wrong. What you say does not coincide at all with my knowledge of India. A person is considered Punjabi if their parents are Punjabi, not because they speak Punjabi (although that is usually the case). I assume the same is true of Bengalis.

I agree that the stories should be sourced. Obviously, it would be better to select stories from a source like the Kathamrita, and I will do that when I can. --goethean ॐ 16:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay! Go ahead! 61.0.164.80 12:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jewishness is based on religion and ethnic origin; being Bengali is based on language and ethnic origin. I fail to see why one is a more valid categorization than the other. Sri Ramakrishna was a Bengali, because that's where he was from and Bengal was the environment that shaped him. To say he was Hindu is, if anything, more contentious and more limiting, because it would restrict the universalism of his message to one religious group. If Ramakrishna transcended religious boundaries, is it fair to say he was (merely) a Hindu? I like much better the formation Ramakrishna was a Bengali who transcended caste and creed. QuartierLatin 1968 6 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

Can we revisit the 'traditional' label? As in most saint or popular figure's case, followers will document a biography and in the absence of criticizers etc. that is usually the only version available. Instead of labelling it 'traditional', I would like to keep the facts but replace some of the phrases (ex spiritual experiences) with a more neutral stance. Let me know if anyone has problems with this or would like to discuss before I proceed shortly. --Pranathi 19:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

anony edits

this was me. I got logged out somehow. --goethean ॐ 15:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article Title

Bhagawan?

Swami Vivekananda uses this epithet before the name of Ramakrishna in his epistles written to his brother disciples as back as 1893. Now also Ramakrishna devotees world wide are using this in their congregations. Why not retain it? Apnavana 16:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed it because it is not the name by which he is generally known in India or elsewhere. --goethean ॐ 5 July 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Paramahamsa

Google shows clearly that the ...MAH... form dominates in English over the ...MH... spelling. But it also makes clear, by a factor of 40 that "Ramakrishna" suffices. "Paramahamsa" clearly belongs in the name cluster at the head of the lead sent, but creates unnecessary confusion about whether he is the Ramakrishna. Seeing no evidence of previous contrary discussion, i am boldly making the move & fixing any dbl rdrs that result.
--Jerzy•t 16:35, 2005 August 18 (UTC)

Devanagari and Bengali transliterations

Can any Indian contributors help supply us with the spelling of Ramakrishna in Devanagari and Bengali, like the Gandhi article has? --goethean ॐ 8 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

Charismatic leader

The categorization is defined as:

In traditional authority, the legitimacy of the authority comes from tradition, in charismatic authority from the personality and leadership qualities of the individual (charisma), and in legal (or rational-legal) authority from powers that are bureaucratically and legally attached to certain positions. A classic example of these three types may be found in religion: priests (traditional), Jesus (charismatic), and the Roman Catholic Church (legal-rational).

Ramakrishna Paramahmsa does not have a large following because of his traditional or legal authority. His followers are attracted by his personal qualities - he is a charismatic leader. I am reinserting category - if one person does not find him charismatic that does not merit removal. please discuss objections here.--Pranathi 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Controversy should be removed

The controversy is not regarding SriRamakrishna's life and should be removed. He is worshipped as god by millions and some scantily read book info should not be considered a controversy of his life. Whoever wants the information should start a new one for Jeffrey Kripal or Kali's Child and put this as a controversy there.

--Sundaraz 01:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the section takes up too much weight in the page. I don't think it should be removed but tagged onto reception and replaced by something short like :

Recently, Kali's Child, a book by Jeffery Kirpal, Professor of Religious Studies at Rice University, alleged that Ramakrishna was driven by homoerotic, pedophiliac passions. While it is acclaimed in the US, Indian criticism has been vocal about the book's content. They allege that Kripal has only elementary knowledge of Bengali and Tantra, but has selectively interpreted Bengali texts to suit the basic theme of his book. The book has also triggered much debate into the alleged biases and shoddy scholarship of Hinduism studies in the US. - pranathi

replacing with proposed coontent since I didn't hear objections.--Pranathi 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the change.--sundaraz 15:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope... I disagree. This is an Encyclopedia and NOT a religious tract. Dr. Kripal's work is scholarly, thought debated. If you censor it out again, I will NPOV protest this article. Emyth 00:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The external links section can include related books, including critical ones. I do not see the need to delete it, althogh it is a minority POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit and sources

The article needs copyediting and NPOV by means of attributing the material to one or more of the sections in "Biography" ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup notice

Article needs:

• NPOVing and attributions of assertions
• Sources
• Sources for quotations

≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

hindu renaissance

why is "hindu renaissance" pointing to "bengal renaissance"? though they do overlap, they are not the same thing.--ppm 01:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

some thoughts

It seems unfortunate that such an important article is so awfully written. Why does a biography need a elaborate explanation in the beginning why it should be considered authentic, instead of pointers to relevant sources? Not to mention the POV statements, which not only is not encyclopedic, but glosses over and hides the enormous social impact of Ramakrishna. The whole article is full of such exasperasting follies. --ppm 00:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I could not agree more with you, that is why the cleanup tags are there. Be bold and work on it to fix these very obvious problems. I can help a bit, time permitting. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 02:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Shmitra

Thank you for your recent excellent additions/corrections to the article. Could you please add a list of the sources you are using to Ramakrishna#Sources? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody provide some of Ramakrishna's parables? I can't really remember any, much less give a reference. I have to say I have a paucity of references right now. I would appreciate someone adding them, or editing whatever I wrote depending on references.--ppm 23:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Goethean

Why was the "initiation" section removed? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

can we have discussions?

can we have discussions before wholesale reversals? I hope we don't want to see an edit war here. --ppm 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would also like to understand the reason for these wholesale reverts. Goethean, care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Many facets

It seems that some anon users have problem with the idea that Ramakrishna's contributions were multifaceted. Though there should be a substantial section descrining the religious perspectives (I started such a section), that is not all of what he was about and should be included in a encyclopedia.--ppm 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I deleted a sentence from the intro

I deleted the sentence that incorrectly attributed the quote "He who as Rama, He who was Krishna. . ." to Swami Vivekananda. It was actually Sharatchandra Chakravarty who wrote that, quoting Vivekananda as saying Ramakrishna himself said it. [1] So not only is the sentence incorrect, but the quote itself is hearsay. --Smithfarm 19:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Draft article

There is still a draft article at here and another here. Can someone confirm that that drafts are now redundant and can be deleted - it is very confusing having both in existence. Kcordina ^Talk 14:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I did a comparision of the 2 drafts, thru vim, and i found that both the articles are 99% same. i feel this one can be deleted. I need so time to merge the other one with the main article, after which even this draft can be deleted. --vineeth 17:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've tagged the article for deletion - once you've checked the other one, just add a db tag to it. Kcordina ^Talk 18:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

repetition

I have deleted the repetitive sentence regarding J.kripal's book from the comtemporary influence paragraph.Bharatveer 08:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

oops...my mistake. Thanks. — goethean ॐ 15:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ramakrishna Mission + translations

Here's a question that you don't have to answer. It is only intended to make you wonder whether your side is 100% right and mine is 100% wrong. Why has the Ramakrishna Mission never, ever published an unexpurgated version of the Kathamrta? Why is every single translation that they put out abridged? Thy have published hundreds and hundreds of books on every subject of Indian religion and philosophy. But every single translation of the Kathamrta has sections removed. Why do you think that is? I would like to obtain an English translation of the complete Kathamrta. I cannot, due to the interference of the Ramakrishna Mission, the people who are supposedly caring for RK's legacy. A bit odd, wouldn't you say? — goethean ॐ 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We are actually on the same boat. I have absolutely no respect for "your" scholars and you have absolutely no respect for "my" scholars! Also, RK's main biography is not the Gospel, it is:

Saradananda, Swami (1952). Sri Ramakrishna The Great Master. Sri Ramakrishna Math. ASIN B000LPWMJQ. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I, following Kripal, disagree. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example of Kripalian distortion! --Mankar Camoran^talk 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You can actually find the unabridged version of the Gospel here. --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The first three of five books, anyways. QED. — goethean ॐ 16:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Be patient. The rest will come. --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From here: I have made a literal translation, omitting only a few pages of no particular interest to English-speaking readers.

So, as far as I can see, my point stands that 122 years after the death of Ramakrishna, there exists no English translation of the complete, unabridged, unexpurgated Kathamrta. Even though there exists a huge organization and publishing house, supposedly dedicated to Ramakrishna's legacy. And yet supporters of the Ramakrishna Mission see no problem with this. — goethean ॐ 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the book I was referring to. --Mankar Camoran^talk 17:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the HTML source of that page, the website was created in 1996. I wonder how long we've been "patiently waiting" for the last two volumes to be 'processed'? You are probably unaware of this (having, I assume, along with the vast majority of Kripal's critics, never read Kali's Child), but (according to Kripal) most of the "secret talk" is in the last two volumes. — goethean ॐ 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how Kripal got to know all these things. --Mankar Camoran^talk 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It's his job -- he's a religion scholar. In 1983, Malcolm Mclean, a professor at Otago University in New Zealand, for his PhD dissertation, translated the entire Kathamrta. Unfortunately, this translation has not been published and I have not yet been able to obtain a copy. Kripal cites this translation in Kali's Child. He also compares many of M's narratives to those of Saradananda's, and finds M's accounts to be invariably more accurate. That's why I don't consider the lilaprasanga to be a primary source document. It's frankly quite sad that I know all of this and you don't, and it once again shows that the Ramakrishna Mission is in the business of covering up facts rather than distributing them. — goethean ॐ 18:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that some people feel the Ramakrishna Mission has some kind of conspiracy to "cover up" stuff. But they publish the Bengali Kathamrita without any omissions or cover-ups! And the Lilaprasanga! Swami Nikhilananda was writing for Americans of 1942; obviously, certain passages of the Kathamrita would have been considered shocking if literally translated. So he judiciously left out a few passages. But it doesn't seem like a conspiracy. "Sanitized"? Well, how about "adapted for a Western audience of 1942"? And the Mission doesn't have legions of swamis who are excellent translators and who want to retranslate the Kathamrita. Nikhilananda's version is so well-done (excepting the omissions). And the publishers are not the Ramakrishna Mission but the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center of New York, who might not grant permission to alter that text. But I think that other translation mentioned above is completed in print (though not yet online). Anyhow, another translation is available here(though not for free).

Devadaru (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Ramakrishna Mission is a large, global organization which publishes hundreds of books per year, mostly commentaries on Indian scriptures. In 100 years they have not found the need to published an unexpurgated English translation of their guru. Yes --- to me this does demonstrate that they are hiding something from the public. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, they do publish hundreds of books, no doubt. But not, I think, hundreds of new books every year. Perhaps a couple of dozen new releases in a year? (We could check that, of course...) Yes, the Mission is conservative, no doubt. But willful concealement? Well, I guess it comes across that way to Kripal and others, but not to me. Especially since they publish the unexpurgated Kathamrita. Of course, they only published that when the copyright ran out; that was held (I suppose) by the descendents of the original author. But now that the copyright has expired, anyone could translate the book. The Mission doesn't own the copyright! Devadaru (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Suppressed diary and book

The “850-page diary by Mahendranath Gupta” which is said to be suppressed by Kripal is surely not owned by the Mission. As I have heard at least, the descendents of Mahendranath Gupta, the author of the Kathamrita (which he wrote with the help of this diary) own the diary, not the Mission. If the Mission doesn't own it, how can they suppress it! Of course, anyone is free to claim that they suppress it; but the facts don't seem to support that claim. And since the Mission itself publishes Ram Chandra Datta's Jivanavrttanta, the claim that it suppressed that work is ridiculous. These claims could be dropped from this article (although Kripal may well have made the claims; I haven't seen the second edition of the book to know whether he changed any of these claims) since they seem to be inaccurate. Devadaru (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

They "seem" to be inaccurate? Citations, please. — goethean ॐ 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned this first point on the talk page for Kali's Child. Kripal admits:

"I have also, I believe, overplayed the degree to which the tradition has suppressed Datta's Jivanavrttanta. Indeed, to my wonder (and embarrassment), the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable." (see: [2]).

Tyagananda states:

"Neither the diaries nor their copies are in the Ramakrishna Order's archives. The original diaries are with M's descendants, and scholars—including a monk of the Ramakrishna Order whom I know—have seen those diaries, even photographed them, without undue difficulty." (see [3] or [4])

Thanks. Devadaru (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting by Priyanath

This edit needs to be reverted. It is against Wikipedia guidelines to introduce a book in the words of its most vulgar critic. Move Sil's words further down in the page. — goethean ॐ 02:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The editorial by Narasingha Sil, a notable scholar, in a Calcutta paper is central to the controversy around the book, and therefore notable. There is no Wikipedia policy about introducing books with only testimonials and awards. ~ priyanath talk 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Sil started it with his article in the Statesman. The journal reviews followed, the RISA community defending one of its own. Otherwise, the book was headed for well-deserved mediocrity. rudra (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI --- I don't know (and don't care to know) exactly what your beef is with academia (/Western academics/religious scholars/rationality in general), but the constant sniping and editorializing is off topic and frankly a waste of everyone's time. Your comments will be read more closely and taken more seriously if they are on topic. — goethean ॐ 15:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have no "beef" with "western academics" or "rationality in general". As for "religious scholars", there are the scholarly and there are those who play them on TV. That distinction, in fact, was the real controversy. rudra (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you expect Wikipedia to enshrine your impression that American scholars of South Asian religion are frauds? — goethean ॐ 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many notable American scholars of South Asian religion who are not frauds—in fact some are quoted in this article. Kripal's extremely dodgy scholarship and use of psychoanalysis (arguably fraudulent, since he has no training) have been called out by the most notable of those scholars. ~ priyanath talk 19:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See this for some spot-on commentary. The problem seems endemic, but it's especially acute in South Asian "religious studies". Hiding the RISA-L archives (after the Courtright affair) was the result of a rare and remarkable moment of introspection for the narcissists preponderating that list. rudra (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So you don't like Freudian hermeneutics. Just as importantly, I don't like chocolate ice cream. — goethean ॐ 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Different versions - long, medium, short

There are now three versions of the Kali's Child section.

1. The lengthy version currently in the article.
2. The shorter two-paragraph version above.
3. The short one-paragraph version above.

Abecedare, Devadaru, Rudrasharman, and myself have all given feedback that the long version (#1) needs to be shortened. Rudra and myself have spoken in favor of an even shorter version. Devadaru favors #2 as is, though he hasn't yet seen #3. It's clear that there is consensus building for one of the two shorter versions. It's assumed that the shorter versions would include a link for people to see more at Kali's Child. Feedback would be appreciated, namely, which version do you prefer, and how would you change that version to make it more neutral or encyclopedic?~ priyanath talk 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer #3, knowing that some changes still need to be worked out among editors. ~ priyanath talk 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the "Contemporary Scholarship" section should be expanded to cover more works, by more authors, rather just the three we currently have. However, debate over Kali's Child has dominated discussion of RK for eleven years now. On the other hand, a short paragraph with a clear link to the main Kali's Child article may lead interested readers to read about the entire debate rather than snippets which can more easily be manipulated. So arguments can be made for all three alternatives. — goethean ॐ 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the #3 version be implemented. The article on Kali's Child has been nicely filled out by Goethean. Is there any reason to delay more? Devadaru (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It could be tweaked further, but with Kali's Child filled out, as you say, this version is as good as any for now. rudra (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the long version with version #3, since it has the strongest support. The entire section still needs some work, in my opinion. For example, psychoanalysis is considered pseudoscience by many. That should be part of the overall intro, but I imagine it might be OR unless there was a source discussing it in the context of Ramakrishna.

Regarding the short version, I agree it still needs alot of tweaking, but it's the best for now. Since Goethean seems to like the 'plain shit' addition, I've included it along with the 'shoddy scholarship' context. Also, the accusation by Kripal of suppression of biographical material needs to be clarified per Devadaru's points above, and I couldn't find the citation for Kripal's claim of a coverup. ~ priyanath talk 00:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

...psychoanalysis is considered pseudoscience by many.

Are you kidding me? You want to introduce a debate about the status of psychoanalysis into this article? Or you just want an editorial note reproducing your opinion? There is aleady a link to psychoanalysis. Interested readers can follow it. — goethean ॐ 14:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support the short version with tweaking and a link to the other article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Kakar

It seems to me that a novel claiming to be based on the lives of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda doesn't have much to do with "contemporary scholarship". It's a novel, after all, not a scholarly study! I think that para could be justifiably removed, as it was by Priyanath. It belongs, if anywhere, on the page for Sudhir Kakar, it seems to me. Devadaru (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC) --Devadaru (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can justify anything you want. I thought that we were trying to write a good article. My mistake. It is clear that Sudhir Kakar is a contemporary scholar who has written extensively on Ramakrishna, and --- from his own words, which I cited --- that his novel Ecstacy was another example of that effort. Devadaru's removal of well-cited, relevant information should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fiction is pure trivia and fantasy, and is meaningless for this article. ~ priyanath talk 19:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of how you feel about fiction, it is appropriate for this article to mention Kakar's novel. See Category:Representations of people in popular culture — goethean ॐ 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being in a section titled 'In popular culture', since it's not um, 'scholarship', even by the stretchy definition of this article. ~ priyanath talk 21:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't under scholarship, but nevertheless you inaccurately changed the header to "popular culture". Why? I have changed it back. — goethean ॐ 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You originally put it under 'contemporary scholarship', but changed that title. Modern culture also works. I chose popular culture because that's exactly the Cat you quoted above (read your note above, please), where you say "See Category:Representations of people in popular culture". ~ priyanath talk 21:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your new header is completely nonsensical. Please stop damaging the article. You have a section on "In modern culture" under "Contemporary reception". But "modern" is a broader term than "contemporary". Novels and music about Ramakrishna are responses to Ramakrishna's life. I will revert your change. — goethean ॐ 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree. 'Response' is so vague as to be nonsensical. Usually the section header specifies (as in 'specific') what is underneath. Many editors wiser than you and I have added 'Popular culture' sections to articles. It is in fact the category you quoted to justify the addition after all. But I won't edit war on this - feel free to revert again. ~ priyanath talk 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Show me a "popular culture" section that has classical music listed and I'll support your version. — goethean ॐ 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, well, it seems to me that a novel in which the characters are "based on" someone, is different from any of the categories in the page noted above. The characters don't have the same names. And "based on" means, as I see it, based on Kakar's own very unusual (and to many people offensive) view of Ramakrishna. Its offensive nature doesn't disqualify it from being included here; but the fact that such a view is in the extreme minority does. So I don't see a strong case for presenting it here; I still think it belongs most appropriately in the article on Kakar. Devadaru (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, if Kakar's view of RK is offensive to someone, we had better censor it from Wikipedia, hadn't we? No matter if it is shared by most contemporary relgion scholars, they're all frauds after all. — goethean ॐ 03:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly read carefully. I wrote: "Its offensive nature doesn't disqualify it from being included here; but the fact that such a view is in the extreme minority does." Thanks. Devadaru (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, among cited opinions, Kakar's view is in the majority. — goethean ॐ 15:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kakar's novel is not about Ramakrishna. That it's "based" on him is irrelevant; had it been a runaway best-seller or otherwise notable in its own right, there might have been grounds to include it. rudra (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You say that its based on RK but not about him. That doesn't make any sense. — goethean ॐ 15:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Was Rushdie's The Satanic Verses about Muhammad? Was Mary Renault's Alexander Trilogy a work of history? rudra (talk) 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Kakar's fictional novel is utter fantasy, and is not notable in an encyclopdia, unless it's in a a pop culture section, at best. ~ priyanath talk 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it strange how Kakar's fantasies match the conclusions in Kakar's, Sil's and Kripal's scholarly books? — goethean ॐ 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment The novel is a fictitious story, whose characters are only claimed to be based on Kakar's view of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, not necessarily the generally accepted view of them, something the current article doesn't express clearly. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I saw there's a third opinion request for this page. Was the issue with the inclusion of the novel resolved? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to help if another opinion is needed. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 14:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Was the issue with the inclusion of the novel resolved?

Yes. The Indians on this talk page have together decided that coverage of the novel should be suppressed, because they don't like the conclusions of the recent scholarship on Ramakrishna. It offends their Victorian sensibilities. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's, um... a rather biting statement. You sure everything's resolved? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the situation as I understand it. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, okay. As long as these conclusions are relatively well-known and aren't WP:FRINGE, I think it'd be okay to include them. But that's just my take. If you guys need help, please feel free to post on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking that stuff published in leading academic religion studies journals and by the University of Chicago doesn't qualify as fringe science. Actually, the beliefs of Rajiv Malhotra, a leader in the movement opposing contemporary Hindu studies, and who User:Rudrasharman pointed me to so that I would appreciate his view that all American Hindu studies scholars are frauds, come closer to deserving that term. — goethean ॐ 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Somnath Bhattacharyya's essay has only been published on the website of The Infinity Foundation (Rajiv Malhotra's website), and I don't think that it qualifies as a reliable source. It is certainly far, far below the standards of the journals which published the other authors listed in the same section. I suggest that it be removed. — goethean ॐ 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation for Bhattacharyya (fn 43) from Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America. The Sil quote you've attributed to Bhattacharyya (fn 40) on Malhotra's website is not in that book as far as I can see. ~ priyanath talk 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates

The POV templates can be removed as far as I'm concerned. — goethean ॐ 15:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OK by me too. Devadaru (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm traveling and won't be able to look or comment until late Monday. ~ priyanath talk 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates, POV, rewritten section

I can’t support removing the tags, as I explain below. If consensus supports removing the tags, then so be it - I’ve become busy in real life, and unfortunately will have to leave with these suggestions, and with my addition of the Roland material to the article. Note that Roland is head and shoulders above the others in terms of peer-reviewed articles on psychoanalysis, has the respect of his peers, and happens to specialize in this area. In his writings, he addresses all of the various approaches used by Rolland, Obeyesekere, Masson, Kakar, Kripal, and much more – so the Roland paragraph is not a response to Kripal’s book, but an expert’s view on applying p.a. to Ramakrishna, by a psychoanalyst who is actually notable for that. God forbid that there be an expert’s view expressed in this article, rather than just former classmates and fellow club members, but it has been done before on Wikipedia.

First, the article currently states “Other scholars, writing in major academic religion journals, called Kripal's arguments "thorough", "well documented" and "convincing". Those three words/phrases are single words pulled from entire reviews by Maclean, Hawley, Urban, and Radice. This isn’t a very accurate or traditional way of condensing academic articles, which is why my original proposed short version didn’t use selected pull quotes. Just for example, about 50% of Urban’s review is spent pointing out serious flaws in Kripal’s work, even though he is the former classmate of Kripal:

“Despite its undeniable importance, however, Kripal's work also bears some rather troubling problems. Perhaps the most pervasive of these is Kripal's tendency toward sensationalism and at times an almost journalistic delight in playing on the "sexy," "seedy," "scandalous," and shocking nature of his material (e.g., pp. 27 ff.). Indeed, with section headings such as "Cleaving the Bitch in Two," "The Tantric Latrine," "Ecstatic Diarrhea," and the "Pansomatic Orgasm,"….” (and much more)

“A second problem arises from Kripal's understanding of "Tantra" and his identification of Ramakrishna as a "Tantrika." First, Kripal seems to take "Tantra" to be an established category and a given fact: in so doing he ignores the fact that, as Andre Padoux and others have pointed out, the category of"Tantra" as a singular, unified, abstract entity is itself largely the construction of nineteenth-century British Orientalists. Ramakrishna and his disciples were themselves an important part of the way in which Tantra came to be defined in Western and Indian dis- course. Second, Kripal lapses all too often into a very popular misconception of Tantra as something "scandalous, seedy, sexy, and dangerous" (p. 32), which is defined primarily by the equation of eroticism and mysticism: "In asserting this basic relationship between the mystical and the sexual, I am . . proposing that Ramakrishna was a Tantrika" (p. 5). Sexuality is but one rather limited-and not necessarily the most important-element of the diverse texts and traditions we label collectively as "Tantra." “

“However, perhaps the most problematic aspect of Kripal's work is its lack of attention to social and historical context. Ironically, although he argues persua- sively for the need to ground Tantra in its lived circumstances, Kripal often falls into the problems identified by Ronald Inden (in Inden's Imagining India [Cam- bridge, Mass., 1990]) and other critics of Orientalism: he tends to reify a static, archetypal, and ahistorical "Hindu unconscious" or "Imaginal World”, which seems to transcend social and historical context.” (and much more) -Journal of Religion 78 (2): 318-320. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Second, the overall language of the article as it currently stands is weasely, for example declaring that those one word quotes are from ‘major’ academic religious journals, when both sides include references from similar journals. More relevant is ‘who’ said what. Third, the comment that Sil eventually approved of the book is referenced only by a vaguely worded, passing mention of Sil’s review, quoted in a non-RS website.

Fourth, since most of the Contemporary reception section is about psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna, there should be a subhead above that part titled “Psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna”.

Finally, I suggest that a more skilled writer, and someone with an academic background, rewrite the section. I do think my stepping aside will help to diffuse some of the contention (one-sided in my opinion). Below is the last version that I proposed on the talk page, before it was added to the article and then gutted, just in case another editor wants to see an alternate approach. Please note that this version gives roughly equal space to both camps, unlike the current version of the article:

In 1995, Jeffrey Kripal wrote Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, which he called a psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna. Kali's Child's primary thesis is that Ramakrishna's mystical experiences were generated by the lingering results of childhood traumas and sublimated homoerotic and pedophiliac passions. Kripal also alleged that the Ramakrishna Mission has suppressed biographical material relating to Ramakrishna's erotic life, a claim challenged by some religious figures. Kali's Child provoked controversy after religious scholar Narasingha Sil wrote an article in The Statesman questioning Kripal's scholarship. In subsequent articles, Kripal's translations, his conclusions, and his authority to apply psychoanalysis to Ramakrishna were questioned by several scholars, including Alan Roland, Huston Smith, and Somnath Bhattacharya. Other scholars found Kripal's arguments convincing. Kripal responded to the criticisms in journal articles and postings on his website, but stopped participating in the discussion in late 2002.

Adieu, ~ priyanath talk 04:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that your original paragraph seems more appropriate than what is there now. All these things (including the discussion of Roland's criticisms) should go at Kali's Child. Of course you put them here to offset what you saw as an unbalanced presentation. Well, do other editors have objections to the concise presentation written by Priyanath? I would support going back to that one, and moving the extended coverage to Kali's Child. Devadaru (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, first there is the question of whether calling a book "plain shit" is accurately described as "questioning the book's scholarship". I'd say that's a rather genteel way of putting it. And then Sil reversed his position the next year, which is a relevant fact which brings his opinion into question. So I included the fact in the article. Priyanath's response is that it is not cited to a reliable source — it is cited to the same Somnath Bhattacharyya essay that Priyanth has been taking for gospel truth during this entire discussion!

Second, we are back to the old problem wherein Priyanath thinks that a description of the book should be balanced by criticism of it. In actuality, the book received both praise and criticism, and both sides should be represented, ideally giving a neutral description of the book's reception by the public and academia. Referring to religious studies scholars as "just former classmates and fellow club members" is patently absurd. — goethean ॐ 15:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Priyanath's original version is unbalanced. Here is the coverage of the criticism:

Kali's Child provoked controversy after religious scholar Narasingha Sil wrote an article in The Statesman questioning Kripal's scholarship. In subsequent articles, Kripal's translations, his conclusions, and his authority to apply psychoanalysis to Ramakrishna were questioned by several scholars, including Alan Roland, Huston Smith, and Somnath Bhattacharya.

Here is the praise:

Other scholars found Kripal's arguments convincing.

In the current version of the article, I changed that to:

Other scholars, writing in major academic religion journals, called Kripal's arguments "thorough", "well documented" and "convincing".

In response, I am told that I am misrepresenting the reception to the book. It seems that negative coverage can recieve plenty of room in the article, while the smallest positive thing must be carefully circumscribed and exactingly contextualized. And now we have somehow found room for an entire paragraph — one longer than the Kripal paragraph — about how psychoanalysis is being inappropriately applied to Hinduism. Who has gotten more attention in the world: Kripal, or Roland? In our article Roland gets more attention — and what little attention can be given to Kripal is dominated by the criticism. And still Priyanath claims that the article is too positive to Kripal. It seems that we haven't made much progress. — goethean ॐ 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, Sil did not "reverse his position". And if he did, then he must have reversed himself again, as he posted a comment to the Malhotra vs Kripal threads on Sulekha renewing his challenge to take on Kripal 1-on-1, in Bengali. I think Bhattacharya misread an ironical passage -- which could very well be the same as a passage in Sil's 1997 article ("Is Ramakrishna a Vedantin, a Tantrika or a Vaishnava? An examination", Asian Studies Review 1997). rudra (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"just former classmates and fellow club members", on the contrary, is quite relevant (Haberman and Parsons are also out of Chicago, like Urban), as is competence in Bengali, where clearly Radice and McLean would have to be preferred over the others. And, of course, the fact that the book got the AAR award long before the reviews. How exactly were any of the club supposed to trash the book after that? Urban and Larson spoke up (but didn't touch the Bengali, obviously), the rest caved. rudra (talk) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To repeat myself yet a third time, if you don't have reliable sources to back up your editorial opinion, you are wasting everyone's time. None of this will be used in deciding what gets in the article and what is removed. — goethean ॐ 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Haberman and Parsons, in case you were wondering. Radice and Mclean. Sulekha is a banned site, sadly, though Sil's RISA-L post of May 1998 should have been enough to see that Bhattacharya was quite likely mistaken. As for 1996 (the award) preceding 1997/8 (the reviews)... *shrug* rudra (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

*shrug*

Indeed. — goethean ॐ 14:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Brian A. Hatcher. — goethean ॐ 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot about the early review by Openshaw (besides misspelling her name). Sorry. rudra (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I believe Sil's 1998 book has a discussion of the sources, including secondary material in works not focused on Ramakrishna. The primary biographical works, based on direct acquaintance, are four: first, Ramchandra Dutta's jivanavṛttānta, part of which was published even before RK's death (in 1885). Translations exist, but none that could be considered reliable, AFAIK. The second and third are intertwined: Mahendranath Gupta's 5 volumes of kathāmṛta taking many years to be published, and in the meantime, Swami Saradananda's "official" (from the POV of the RK Mission) biography, the lilāprasanga. Multiple translations exist for both. (There is a story that Saradananda was commissioned by Vivekananda because the latter considered Ramchandra's work "rot".) The fourth is Akshay Kumar Sen's śrīśrīrāmkṛṣṇa punthi, often discounted as it was written in verse with obvious hagiographical intent. rudra (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note: chronologically, Sen's punthi is the second, published in various parts during the 1890s.) rudra (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you read Kripal's account of how the kathamrta was written, in which M was running out of material and so he ended up putting the secret talk in volumes 4 and 5? — goethean ॐ 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The appendix (p.329-336)? I'm not sure that's what Kripal says. I read him to be saying that the secret talks are in the later volumes because M was reluctant to reveal them (i.e. deliberately passed over them while gathering material from his diaries for the early volumes). The argument that the secret talks are in the later volumes because M had run out of material doesn't strike me as cogent, because had he been reluctant, he could simply have not written those volumes at all. rudra (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I re-read the appendix, and I mis-remembered it in my comment above. Kripal says that M's "audacity" in what he revealed was progressively increasing in the later volumes. Kripal says on 332 that M was running out of material, but that only explains the shorter length of volume 5 and of the scenes in v. 5. — goethean ॐ 14:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

see here. What was Saradananda's real name? — goethean ॐ 22:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Saradananda's real name was Sarat Chandra Chakravarty. "Alasinga" I believe is Alasinga Perumal, one of Vivekananda's "householder" (i.e. lay person) friends in Madras. rudra (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

and here — goethean ॐ 22:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, don't have much time now to get into editing. … But why mention only a criticism (Sil's) of "My Master"? Of course "My Master" presents Vivekananda's personal interpretation of Ramakrishna. That goes without saying. Why trash the lecture by quoting Sil's nasty remarks? I don't think they belong. Anyone's biographical statement will naturally be coloured by his opinions, mine, Vivekananda's, Saradananda's, or anyone else. Devadaru (talk) 02:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether "My Master" is a source of accurate information on Ramakrishna. Sil says 'no'. If you have an opinion on this matter from a reliable source, please add it to the article. — goethean ॐ 22:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Translation of Hatcher text

For completeness, my (unscholarly, unverifiable, unreliable, etc) take on these translations. (See also Tyagananda's notes 55 and 141.) The verbal construction "nā kar'le thākte pārtām nā", involving a double negation and two infinitive forms, is by no means simple. In terms of verbal roots, kar="do", thak="stay" and par="be able". So na kar'le="without doing" in the sense of "without having to do" and thakte partam na="couldn't have stayed". The issue, thus, is why RK literally "couldn't have stayed without doing [whatever]". In Kripal's book (p.161), Kripal provides his own initial take on the context by scare-quoting "forced". In other words, in the original Bengali passage (about the rituals arranged by the Bhairavi), there is an implication that RK was a reluctant participant, only that Kripal doesn't believe it which is why he uses "forced" in quotes, to suggest that RK really wasn't reluctant. But what if he was? Then the translated passage means that he had to do whatever in order to remain (and perhaps learn more from the Bhairavi). There is an enormous amount of interpretive uncertainty that has been lost. rudra (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, to be fair, Hatcher's rendering of this as "couldn't resist", generally agreeing with Kripal, isn't outlandish, in that they're reading RK's statement as an emphatic affirmation (which, in theory, would be a matter of tone in the delivery, as double negations of this type can be used to that effect idiomatically, i.e. a form of litotes). However, there is a subtlety. For the affirmative tone, it would have been idiomatically more correct for RK to have said "nā kare thākte pārtām nā" (literally "couldn't have stayed without doing" in the sense of "without having done"). The difference between na kar'le and na kare is the degree of volition connoted. I would suggest presenting both verbal phrases (the actual and the alternative) to Bengalis you know. rudra (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Final note, on sei avasthay. Hatcher translates this as "In that condition", which is not wrong, but arguably inaccurate. Better is "in that situation", i.e "under those circumstances". The difference has to do with whether "avastha" refers principally to RK's internal/personal state (which is how Hatcher and Kripal take it) or to the context (having to learn those rituals from the Bhairavi). rudra (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Devadaru apparently wants the introduction to imply that SRK's sexuality was absolutely normal, and that it is only contemporary academics who find him a little odd. I have provided citations for the fact that scholars find his sexuality to be (at the very least) ambiguous. In order for Devdaru's version to return, you must cite a reliable source which explicitly argues that SRK's sexuality was unambiguous. By "explicitly", I mean that criticizing Kripal is not enough. You must cite a source which says something to the effect of: "SRK's sexuality was normal." If no reliable sources argue this, the intro should not assume that McLean, Sil, Kakar, Kripal, Hatcher, Radice, and Larson are all incompetant or liars.

Please note that my wording is extremely kind to the POV of the Ramakrishna Mission. In fact, most or all of these scholars do not find SRK's sexuality to be ambiguous, but rather to be unambiguously homosexual. But I have not chosen to put that fact into the introduction. — goethean ॐ 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Devadaru reverted my change with the following edit summary:

"Millions of Benalis reading Kathamrita for a century never found RK's sexuality ambiguous."

Since Devadaru provided no citation for this opinion, I have reverted his edit. — goethean ॐ 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bengali quotation

I provided an untranslated Bengali quotation in a footote in the intro which was intended to show that it is not only contemporary scholars who see SRK's sexuality as ambiguous, but rather there is plenty of prima facie evidence in the primary sources. Rudrasharman has removed this quotation with the following edit summary: "rv out of context quote Undid revision 206779062 by Goethean". The problems with this are: (1) All quotations are inherently out of context. More context can be provided, but I don't think that it is needed to prove my point. (2) I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy against out-of-context quotations. — goethean ॐ 00:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Such context as you'd be willing to accept is already there in footnote 24, where the main text has Hatcher's rendering (with an arguably critical omission of context that for consistency calls for snipping "sei avasthay", else someone knowing Bengali might ask "ki avasthay? kon avasthay?") in comparison with Nikhilananda's. As for the claim, you've referenced it; that's enough. rudra (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I've now removed the untranslated portion from footnote 24, which makes the "scholarly" misrepresentation complete (as in supressio veri). But who cares? It's all verifiable! From reliable sources!! rudra (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your extremely sarcastic tone is not helpful. (FYI, if you look at my contributions, you will see that I have been involved in long battles with WP administration and have plenty of reason to be bitter as well.) I may have mangled Hatcher's text by only quoting a portion of his translation and his article's version of the Bengali text. I'll quote the entire passage from Hatcher in the footnote when possible to see if that resolves the issue. — goethean ॐ 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't mangled Hatcher's text, inasmuch as he was agreeing with Kripal. rudra (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As for bitterness, I think you've realized by now that the quality of translation issue is central. The Religious Studies establishment stonewalled on it. And I suppose it was just a coincidence that Kripal dropped the entire subject at the point where Tyagananda produced 191 items to answer. rudra (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you've realized by now that the quality of translation issue is central

Is it? It doesn't seem so to me. Kripal may very well have made 191 translation errors and refused to admit it. His claims of childhood abuse may have grieviously over-stepped the textual evidence. He may have interpreted SRK's desi biography in contemporary American terms. But in my opinion, his basic, essential thesis regarding SRK's sexuality and mystical realization stands. It's not Kripal who has neglected to translate the basic source materials on SRK for the past 100 years; it is the Ramakrishna Mission. There's more to Tyagananda's essay than translation errors. There's a reason why a reader of Tyagananda's essay never finds out a single thing about the historical facts regarding SRK's sexuality — and it's not because it's beyond the scope of the article. It's the same reason why the RKM publishes book after book on Vedanta and Shankaracharya and the Upanishads rather than on SRK. — goethean ॐ 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is, because Kripal's "evidence" is entirely textual. Misread text equals bogus evidence. Bogus evidence, bogus case. Tyagananda disclaimed any competence in psychology, which is why he didn't offer an "alternative explanation", if that's what you think was expected of him. The RKM's remaking of RK into a (sexless?) Vedantin is Vivekananda's legacy, and a red herring here, although Kripal's conjuration of a paradoxical "homosexual Tantrika" is even more bizarre. Regarding the historical facts -- as opposed to question begging fantasies -- Kripal offers nothing that Isherwood didn't know. The conclusion is different because Isherwood, though a homosexual himself, wasn't into faddish combinations of psychoanalysis (or more accurately, "freudianizing" as the RISA folks call it), New Age Tantra (disastrous as Kripal's Bengali is, his Sanskrit is nonexistent), queer theory, and whatever else by way of theorrhea tickles the synapses of the Religious Studies establishment these days. In the highest tradition of epigones, Kripal produced "good reading" for his peers, the only ones who count in his world view; it didn't matter in the least that it was nonsense to anyone with a clue. rudra (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. Contemporary literary theory is reprehensible bullshit, but the fact that the RKM systematically suppresses any actual information relating to the biography of their ostensible guru is totally fine. That makes sense, especially considering your admiration for the Hindutvan demagogue Rajiv Malhotra. Any BS excuses the actions of the RKM, and you assume that any attack that the swamis mount against American academics is valid. I understand. — goethean ॐ 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, “the RKM systematically suppresses any actual information relating to the biography of their ostensible guru” seems to overstate the case a bit. It has been mentioned numerous times before, that the mission publishes unexpurgated versions of Kathamrita, Punthi, Jivanvrttanta, and Lilaprasanga in Bengali. "Systematically supresses"? Hmmm... It sounds almost as if it's some kind of "evil empire"! But I am impressed by the nobility of character, dedication to truth and honesty, and other fine character traits of the members I know personally. Devadaru (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Why, of course it's an evil empire! Those devious geniuses in the RKM are fully aware that millions of Bengalis for the past century couldn't read their native language to save their lives, and still can't, not if the RKM can help it, by gum! It has taken the heroic and glorious efforts of Jeffrey Kripal and Brian Hatcher to expose this vast conspiracy and to deliver those poor Bengalis from their benighted ignorance and stupidity. rudra (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Not an evil empire, just a bunch of liars. — goethean ॐ 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, telling stories. Jeffrey Kripal should know, eh? rudra (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm, It seems to me that the level of discourse here is crossing a line of civility, and I apologize for my part in that. Obviously we are coming from very very different standpoints. Though I don't accept Kripal's conclusions, I accept the right of others to do so. I trust others accept my right, which is informed by thought, study, and some knowledge of Bengali, to reject Kripal's conclusions.

Is it possible to completely master the sex-drive? I believe it is, and I have personally met people (a very few, I admit) whom I feel have been able to do so. I take Ramakrishna to be one such person. This belief supports my position on Kripal et al. If one holds such mastery to be impossible, which is a legitimate position to hold, no doubt, one might more readily accept Kripal's conclusions. Anyhow, that's a bit of personal explanation. Devadaru (talk) 04:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's always useful to hear the Swamis' spin on these matters. — goethean ॐ 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I beg your pardon sir. But what I wrote above is not "the Swamis' spin" but one man's personal view. Best wishes, I'm going to be on break (and away from computers) till mid June at least. — Devadaru (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity that Evam carried only the essay part of Tyagananda's brief (presumably to be consistent with the original debate in the Harvard Divinity bulletin, if not also for reasons of space). Leaving the detailed commentary (the 191 items) "unpublished" has allowed the RS establishment to ignore it. Kripal's corrections in the second edition (long before Tyagananda's critique) were few and cosmetic; but in a way one has to admire his chutzpah in insisting, for example, that "cocked hips" was a correct translation of tribhanga. The RS establishment allowing gross distortions like this to pass with nary a comment really shows how worthless they are as academics and "scholars". rudra (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Urban misquoted Sil's review?!

In this anonymous edit, someone is claiming that Hugh Urban misquoted (or mistranslated?)Sil's review. I am going to revert the anonymous edit, because the previous version is cited to a reliable source, but I would obviously prefer to have an accurate version. Does anyone have a copy of the review? Was it in English? — goethean ॐ 19:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was in English. I've had trouble acquiring it though. For instance, would you believe that the microforms for 1st quarter 1997 are "missing" at the New York Public Library? rudra (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

would you believe...

Yes. What I still can't believe, however, is that the only scholarly translation of the Kathamrta is a dissertation that is going to cost me a bundle of cash to acquire. And that the Jivanavrttant is untranslated. That boggles my mind. I feel like Tom Hanks in The Da Vinci Code. — goethean ॐ 20:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be cheaper to learn Bengali instead.:-) (The one in the Teach Yourself series is by Radice, btw. And as languages go, the regularity of the grammar is above average. The really tough part is pronunciation.) I'd say the Jivanavrttanta not being translated is in some measure due to its bad odor in RKM circles, official disapproval goes a long way. But the same can't be said for Satyacharan Mitra's book and AFAIK that isn't translated either. In all, general lack of interest, I'd say. rudra (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And as far as books on SRK go, if you want to avoid Sil and Kripal, and remain scholarly, your choices are: nil? — goethean ॐ 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. How useful are Isherwood or Rolland or Max Mueller? (Or Olson?) I don't think the Rolland-Freud correspondence would count for much, as neither of them had seen RK personally. The language barrier is real. rudra (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Statesman review we're discussing now? I might be able to get my hands on it. Its in English, of course. (The mast head used to read till fairly recently: 'The Statesman, into which is incorporated The Friend of India est.1804', and then a coat of arms with elephants. All very Raj.) --Relata refero (disp.) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this the Statesman review we're discussing now?

Yes. — goethean ॐ 20:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And British-owned (and edited) into the 60s. But its glory days are past. The Statesman is in bad shape, eaten alive by the competition, cut down to a precarious existence in Kolkata. The days of the Delhi branch office preeminence (Kuldip Nayar et al) are long gone, shut down, buildings sold. I don't know if they even publish a mofussil edition any more. Sad. Their morgue must be priceless. rudra (talk) 01:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Kathamrita translation, forthcoming scholarship

Did you see this link? I had posted it earlier above as well. A complete translation of Kathamrita, in original format (that is, volume by volume, not chronologically) that claims to be "word for word". US$60. Devadaru (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw it. Four of the five reviewers are swamis. The swamis have proven themselves to be perfectly disinformative on the subject of SRK. Thanks, but since one exists, I'd rather spend my money on a scholarly version. — goethean ॐ 04:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there is some Western scholarship coming in relation to Ramakrishna that has nothing to do with any kind of perceived "ambiguous sexuality", like Jeffrey Long's—see this blog, or Amazon.com Devadaru (talk) 03:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether SRK's sexuality was ambiguous is not in question. Every single scholar — McLean, Larson, Radice, Roy, Urban, Hawley, Hatcher, Kakar, Sarkar, Sil, Kripal — agree that there was something odd about SRK's sexuality. And Bhattacharyya and Tyagnananda conveniently decline to comment on the subject. You can believe whatever you want, but until new reliable sources to the contrary are brought forth, the question is closed. — goethean ॐ 04:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"Something odd" actually applies to practically everything about him. He could have been clinically insane -- from childhood in fact. rudra (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sil categorically calls RK heterosexual, counters Kripal's claims of homosexuality. So not all these guys are in agreement.121.247.58.30 (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Roland

Too much in the last section. Please cut down on it, particularly the bits published by Sulekha. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Roland material is only tangentially related to Ramakrishna and should be cut back. But none of it is referenced to Sulekha. — goethean ॐ 20:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's a conference paper that was subsequently posted on Sulekha and reprinted in their little guide to egg-throwing. Interesting:

Concerning my own personal experience, after encountering the writings of Swami Vivekananda at nineteen, I spent the next three and a half years in the early 1950s immersed in Indian philosophy, with Antioch College work periods at centers and ashrams of the Ramakrishna Order; at a Press run by Theosophists who published the weekly, Manas; and at a mountain retreat of Meher Baba, a Sufi, in the Ojai Valley. While on campus, I studied with an Indian professor, M. N. Chatterjee, who was a practicing Vedantist.

I would think that's pretty relevant. Sigh. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find that? I found it. — goethean ॐ 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Invading the Sacred as source

Per Relata refero's suggestion above, does Invading the Sacred qualify as a reliable source? Has it been reviewed in a noteworthy publication? If so, Amazon doesn't seem to know about it. Amazon quotes several reviews but not the publications in which they were published. Four of our footnotes (68, 69, 77, 80) are derived from this source. — goethean ॐ 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Antonio de Nicolas is definitely notable, and religion is his field. Three of the footnotes are to Roland, who is also notable. The other one is to Somnath Bhattacharyya. His professional qualifications aren't in doubt, but he has had no impact as an academic. (The real problem, though, is that his Infinity Foundation essay isn't really reproduced in the book; instead it's a very close textual commentary on that essay -- more a paraphrase, actually -- by Yvette Rosser, which winds up quoting about 90% of the essay anyway. That's iffy. But all this is more relevant to Kali's Child.) Does any of this matter? I don't know. The book was published in India, and reviewed in some Indian newspapers. Publicity in the West has been zero, as is normal for anything from India not suitable for genteel left-liberal literary tastes in the West. Considering its contents, the RS establishment will give it a wide berth (much too emic for their etic sensibilities), so no reviews are likely to be seen in the usual round of journals either. So, if someone wants to wikilawyer the issue, the book could be "unreliabled" away, I think. I predict that outcome if the issue were posted to WP:RS/N (just one "Hindutva!" smear will be enough to sink it.) rudra (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was reviewed in Indian newspapers, it ashould be ok. I still wonder why Amazon doesn't quote these reviews, however. Maybe they weren't enthusiastic enough. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen a review from an Indian newspaper on Amazon. Though that would be odd: Times of India, Indian Express, The Hindu and perhaps some others aren't unknown. rudra (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's even stranger when you consider that its not Amazon which is doing the research. Presumably, publishers give Amazon the blurbs along with the book specs. Maybe Amazon doesn't accept blurbs from foreign newspapers because they are afraid that publishers could just make stuff up, and Amazon can't check them. — goethean ॐ 15:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Rupa Press dropped the ball, then. Meanwhile, the book has a website with a "News and Media" page. rudra (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Vivekananda's letters

Does anyone have any idea if the ellipses in this letter are in the original, or if text has been removed? — goethean ॐ 14:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, it's those blasted framesets again, nasty critters. If you can untangle the real URL, that would be good, but it could be easier just to give the relevant navigation. rudra (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Volume 5 -> Epistles - First Series -> XXII Alasinga — goethean ॐ 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Browsing through a few letters, I think the ellipses correspond to removed text. rudra (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the work of those industrious swamis again, with their "nobility of character, dedication to truth and honesty, and other fine character traits." And this in the so-called Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Can they publish anything without butchering it? — goethean ॐ 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

New section

I strongly disagree with the statement regarding the ambiguous sexuality of Sriramakrishna Paramhansadev. People who are trying to ruin His world wide acceptance as the pioneer of harmonious blending of all religions, the God of universal love, for them I would like to say Father forgive them they not know what they are saying. May God enlighten these people !! who doubts on the sexuality of universal love becuase in one word Sriramakrishna is love personified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.188.35 (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Key policies and guidelines. — goethean ॐ 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)