Talk:Vedanta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hinduism / Philosophy (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Hindu philosophy (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject India (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

@N sahi edits, OR and WP:BRD[edit]

@N sahi: What is it on page 151 that you think supports "Many commentators refer to texts outside of the Prasthanatrayi to explain their philosophical and theologic ideas; the most important of these texts being the Vishnu Purana and the Valmiki Ramayana". I see a mention of Visnu Purana on page 151, but not this. Your other edits have similar issues. Please discuss them per WP:BRD and do not edit war. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah Welch - I quote, "Accordingly the Vedanta, in its later forms, stands for the teaching not merely of the Upanishads, together with the earlier portions of the Veda, but also of other parts of the sacred literature such as the Bhagvad Gita and Vishnu Purana which are regarded as reiterating and amplifying the Upanishadic doctrine." Further confirmation from original sources: Adi Shankara's commentary on Svetasvatara Upanishad have ample quotes from both Valmiki Ramayana and Vishnu Purana. References: 1. The Upanishads, A New Translation Vol 2, by Swami Nikhilananda; ISBN 81-7505-302-X. Also, the commentaries by Ramanuja and Rambhadrachaarya abound in such references. In addition, in a later edit, I have removed Valmiki Ramayan as it was not expressly mentioned. Also, look at reference to Ramanuja's use of Vishnu Purana for Vedantin concept of Brahma in this Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Purana. I have read the same in Sanskrit and can;t provide the source right now. It is understandable that you may seek for more reference or even remove a particular section. But what is the justification of removing the entire edit en masse. Many citations were added and correction made in addition to new material. Please explain the reasons or revert to my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N sahi (talkcontribs) 13:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch - Have reverted to the last edit removing the paragraph in contention. I will add the same only when I have more sources. Please assess the other changes on merit rather than doing mass changes without careful scrutiny and knowledge of the subject matter. I see from your profile that you can read Sanskit. Please get a hand on the commentaries of Adi Shankara and Ramanuja on Svetasvatara Upanishad and see for yourself the references to Vishnu Purana(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@N sahi: That quote that does not support what you added. You can't be interpreting original sources of Adi Shankara, as that is OR. You need a better source that makes that conclusion. A link to wikipedia article for further support is not constructive, as the content in wikipedia's articles cannot be used to support other wikipedia articles. Your edits have the same issues. Why have you removed sources such as Raju and Staal books published by well known publishers, and replaced with "Rupa Publication" source? Both are well known Veda and Vedanta studies-related professors, and meet WP:RS. Further, such lead changes do not meet WP:LEAD guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: How does it not? It does refer Vishnu Purana in addition to Prasthantrayi as belonging to Vedanta. Raju and Staal sources have been removed when they were not in sync with the content or were a misfit for a particular place in the article. Your comment on Rupa is hilarious! That is some xenophobia I can see on Wikipedia today! What makes you think Rupa is not a reputed publishes? Because it is not based out of US or Europe? Did you care to check for the authors of the book. Both are renowned Sanskrit scholars and headed the departments of Philosophies at the University of Kolkata and Patna respectively. Blankly stating that my edits have the same issue doesn't help. 90% of the edits are directly imported from the sources. I find your argument fallacious. Also, if you want to restore some references, what is stopping you fro doing the same? N sahi (talk) 19:28, 30 July 2016 (IST)
@N sahi: The quote (I just bolded it above) you provided does not support the content you are edit warring over, because the quote [1] does not mention Valmiki Ramayana; and does not imply "Many commentators refer to texts outside of..." (both are your OR); [2] the quote is merely saying that "later forms of Vedanta..." and "Vishnu Purana is regarded as reiterating and amplifying the Upanishadic doctrine". The content you added is thus not supported by the source. I am surprised you feel Raju and Staal content is not in "sync and misfit" without giving reasons; but for now, let us focus on Hirayanna quote above, and take one item at a time. Pinging @Kautilya3: and @Joshua Jonathan: for comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Agree it doesn't mention Valmiki Ramayan. I should have posted other references mentioned before (Nikhilananda). Later forms of Vedanta include everything from Vishistadvaita to Bhedabheda. Vishishtadvaita doctine has been developed with numerous reference to Vishnu Purana and Valmiki Ramayan. I can't help your ignorance if you insist on reading every line literally. N sahi (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2016 (IST)
@N sahi: Please read WP:OR and comply with it: you must read sources carefully and literally, summarize them faithfully and not add original research to this article. Your edit summaries with "sabotage"-language, such as this and this are neither helpful nor WP:CIVIL. Your edits to this article are repeatedly ignoring wikipedia content guidelines and are not constructive. For example, this edit of yours, added repeat links to the same term Gaudapada thrice close to each other, which is against WP:REPEATLINK guideline of wikilinking once. Please revert such edits. You are welcome to add additional sources, but do not repeatedly delete scholarly WP:RS such as Raju or Staal or Nicholson or others, particularly after your edit has been reverted once. There is some hindupedia.com and lulu.com etc sourced content, which it seems you did not originally add but have reverted my edits to retain. These are non-RS and admin @Utcursch has noted lulu to be WP:SPS and unacceptable in wikipedia. I will delete these, and if you choose to revert again to retain them, please explain your reasons. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Sounds indeed like OR, though there is a point in noting that (later) Vedanta is not only Advaita Vedanta, but also 'Vishnu Vedanta'. Lulu.com is indeed not RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed, Vedanta and Vaishnavism/Shaivism/etc discussion needs improvement. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Old sources[edit]

@N sahi: Let us avoid, or at least not exclusively rely on sources that were published before 1970, particularly 1950. There are 100s of recent scholarly secondary and tertiary sources on Vedanta. These are more reliable and reflect scholarship in the last 40 to 50 years. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Don't agree, Sarah. Most of the scholarship after 1970s is secondary research, with people having no Sanskrit and relying on translations. There is not one proper translation of either Shankara's, Ramanuja's or Madhva's work. Going after 70s would mean doing away with Hiriyanna, Sengupta, Radhakrishnan, Vivekananda and Sarkar in addition to many others like Max Muller. Just because something is new doesn't mean it is good as well. I find your edit comments on Theos Bernard amusing. Could you please provide sources or revert the references of Bernard you have removed? N sahi (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2016 (IST)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Also, if you do a random study of articles on Indian philosophy on the IEP, most references date back before 1970. I have not found a single modern source without copious reference to Dasgupta, Radhakrishna, Sharma and Hiriyanna. So much so for modern scholarship. N sahi (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2016 (IST)

@N sahi: That is not the correct approach. WP:RS tells you that the Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. WP:PRIMARY sources can only be used to provide additional support to secondary sources, but they cannot be the main basis for Wikipedia content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@N sahi: Please avoid WP:FORUM-y lectures, stereotyping and attacking peer reviewed scholarship as "people having no Sanskrit...". It is neither constructive nor persuasive that you or pre-1950s publications are somehow more reliable sources. Please read the links @Kautilya3 provides above; do not ignore wikipedia WP:RS guidelines (for history sections of this article, consider suggestions on WP:HISTRS page). On Theos Bernard, read this book of Paul Hackett published by Columbia University Press. Just its Preface, if you are short of time, for plenty of red flags. I will give you some time to continue with your edits, but be prepared to see most of Bernard and content based on pre-1970 sources deleted or significantly revised to reflect recent reviews and scholarship, if and where appropriate. This article needs some clean up and additions, as @Joshua Jonathan notes above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: @Kautilya3: Sadly you got me wrong. I meant that I trust scholars who had done a first hand study of the sources. Anyways, no point indulging in semantics. Please continue with your good work, I will continue with mine. You guys rock! Any efforts to improve the article are welcome. I thank Sarah for improvements to my edits. And resources / references will never be a constraint as I have literature in 5 languages to fall back on. Got no time to engage in these debates as I am a full time professional. It goes without saying that a lot of clean up and new material is required. The page is of a very poor quality and I am committed to improving it to the best of my ability. I will continue doing it for the next few months. I am not going ahead with any other article till this article is made world class. Kindly continue correcting me whenever you find a mistake has been made. Who has time to think about the right and wrong approaches on Wiki when one has the ocean of Vedanta to imbibe in. I leave it to experts like you. N sahi (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2016 (IST)

Integration[edit]

Regarding this removal: I count three sources here, not one. Nor do I see any statement that "Vivekananda rejected Shankara's Advaita." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Please see comments in 'Attempts at Integration' N sahi -Let's talk! 12:29, 8 August 2016 (IST)

Nicholas Gier[edit]

Nicholas Gier, Spiritual Titanism: Indian, Chinese, and Western Perspectives, was published by the State University of New York, which makes it WP:RS; the comment "Nicholas source is factually wrong on multiple counts" needs further qualification, and is not enough reason to remove this quote. The comment "Vivekananda and Ramakrishna never left Advaita" seems strange to me; he wasn't an Advaita Vedantin to begin with, but a bhakta/tantric/folk religion adept. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Hi Joshua, thanks the post. I do know quite a bit on the Ramakrishan order, having been educated there and may therefore share some references for your consideration. First and foremost, your information on Ramakrishna is not correct. Ramakrishna's philosophy was Bhakti, not tantric. Bhakti movement is influenced by Vishishtadvaita. Ramakrishna has left little of philosphical discourse and concerned himself more with the theistic aspects. Vivekananda was as hard core an Advaitin as you would ever come across. Many monastaries of the Ramakrishna order are called Advaita Ashrama and the monastic order of the Ramakrishna Mission. The second last paragraph in the same section reads with adequate references,
"A major proponent in the popularisation of this Universalist and Perennialist interpretation of Advaita Vedanta was Vivekananda,[144] who played a major role in the revival of Hinduism,[145] and the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Vedanta Society, the international arm of Ramakrishna Order. His interpretation of Advaita Vedanta has been called "Neo-Vedanta".[146] The popular understanding of Hinduism has been dominated by this neo-Vedanta,[141][note 17] in which mysticism,[141] Aryan origins and the unity of Hinduism[147] have been emphasised.[148][149][150][141]".
It seems to me that Nicholas got it wrong. Vivekananda couldn;t have rejected Advaita and popularised the same at the same time. Also, the Complete Works of Vivekananda are replete with glowing ref3erences to Shankara and Advaita. Presenting below some quotes:
"Shankaracharya had caught the rhythm of the Vedas, the national cadence. Indeed I always imagine that he had some vision such as mine when he was young, and recovered the ancient music that way. Anyway, his whole life's work is nothing but that, the throbbing of the beauty of the Vedas and the Upanishads" - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_8/Sayings_and_Utterances
"The greatest teacher of the Vedanta philosophy was Shankaracharya. By solid reasoning he extracted from the Vedas the truths of Vedanta, and on them built up the wonderful system of Jnana that is taught in his commentaries. He unified all the conflicting descriptions of Brahman and showed that there is only one Infinite Reality. He showed too that as man can only travel slowly on the upward road, all the varied presentations are needed to suit his varying capacity. We find something akin to this in the teachings of Jesus, which he evidently adapted to the different abilities of his hearers. First he taught them of a Father in heaven and to pray to Him. Next he rose a step higher and told them, "I am the vine, you are the branches", and lastly he gave them the highest truth: "I and my Father are one", and "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." Shankara taught that three things were the great gifts of God: (1) human body, (2) thirst after God, and (3) a teacher who can show us the light. When these three great gifts are ours, we may know that our redemption is at hand. Only knowledge can free and save us, but with knowledge must go virtue." - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_8/Lectures_And_Discourses/Discourses_On_Jnana-Yoga
He never rejected Shankara's teachings. He was a monastic Advatin. Yes, in his quest for syncretism, he certainly suggested that we integrate some aspects of Shankara and Ramanuja.
"Shankarâchârya has said that the word Âhâra there means "objects of the senses", whereas Shri Râmânuja has taken the meaning of Ahara to be "food". In my opinion we should take that meaning of the word which reconciles both these points of view. Are we to pass our lives discussing all the time about the purity and impurity of food only, or are we to practice the restraining of our senses? Surely, the restraining of the senses is the main object; and the discrimination of good and bad, pure and impure foods, only helps one, to a certain extent, in gaining that end. There are, according to our scriptures, three things which make food impure: (1) Jâti-dosha or natural defects of a certain class of food, like onions, garlic, etc.; (2) Nimitta-dosha or defects arising from the presence of external impurities in it, such as dead insects, dust, etc. that attach to sweetmeats bought from shops; (3) Âshraya-dosha or defects that arise by the food coming from evil sources, as when it has been touched and handled by wicked persons. Special care should be taken to avoid the first and second classes of defects. But in this country men pay no regard just to these two, and go on fighting for the third alone, the very one that none but a Yogi could really discriminate! The country from end to end is being bored to extinction by the cry, "Don't touch", "Don't touch", of the non-touchism party. In that exclusive circle of theirs, too, there is no discrimination of good and bad men, for their food may be taken from the hands of anyone who wears a thread round his neck and calls himself a Brâhmin! Shri Ramakrishna was quite unable to take food in this indiscriminate way from the hands of any and all. It happened many a time that he would not accept food touched by a certain person or persons, and on rigorous investigation it would turn out that these had some particular stain to hide. Your religion seems nowadays to be confined to the cooking-pot alone. You put on one side the sublime truths of religion and fight, as they say, for the skin of the fruit and not for the fruit itself" - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_8/Sayings_and_Utterances
So, the contention that Ramakrishna and Vivekananda rejected Advaita is completely wrong to the best of my knowledge. I suggest you present other sources to support your contention. I have used primary sources for this discussion purely for rebutting a statement that is genuinely false despite any claims of WP:RS.
Kindly remove the paragraph in contention, else bring in some more sources. N sahi -Let's talk! 11:53, 8 August 2016 (IST)
@N sahi: We can't choose sides, or pick a winner you agree with, or reject what you don't agree with, per WP:NPOV content guidelines. Gier is a reliable source, needs to be summarized, should not be removed as @Joshua Jonathan clarifies. What you can do is to summarize in this article, while respecting WP:DUE guidelines, sources that provide a different view(s) than that of Gier. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@N sahi: apologies for the belated response; I hadn't seen it. Gier is not alone in his assessments, far from that; apart from Paul Hacker, of course, I'd like to mention Richard King, and Elizabeth De Michelis' A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism, which contains an extensive analysis of Vivekananda's ideas and background. Vivekananda did give a modern, syncretistic inpterpretation. Taking a "purist" side, one may reject this; but taking into account the pressures of the colonial system, I think it's admirable, adn in some respects even an improvement, as in his incorporation of a a sense of realism (call it bedhabedha, if you like).
I've re-inserted Nicholson two times, because he provides an Indian context to Vivekananda, showing that Vivekananda's stands in an Indian syncretistic tradition. To mention this is important, for it co-credits the modern Indian interpretations to its own intellectual history, and not solely to western and colonial influences.
That being said, I don't think that the Ramakrishna Order is the best source of info on Vivekananda and Vedanta; on the contrary. So no, I'm not going to remove that section. If one truly wants to understand Vedanta, one has to see through Vivekananda and his western esotericism, and get to the origins. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Attempts at Integration[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan: @Kautilya3:The section talks about integration of six darshanas of Nyaya, Mimamsa, Samkhya, Yoga, Vaisheshikha and Advaita. It should be in the page on Hindu Philosophy and not Vedanta. Have removed the same for the ssame reason. If you have any opinion on this, do let me know? saddarshanas = six darshanas, the orthodox schools N sahi -Let's talk! 12:23, 8 August 2016 (IST)

No, it belongs here; it's part of the history which lead to modern understandings of Vedanta. Please respect WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Vedanta sub-schools and WP:SUMMARY style[edit]

@N sahi: We should try to keep each Vedanta sub-school section short, in a summary style, avoid WP:CFORK issues. This article would be better if it is an overview, if it avoids too much jargon where possible. An interested reader can always go to the linked main article. Even in summary style, every line you add should be sourced to WP:RS. The Advaita Vedanta section is getting big and complicated to read. It should be about the same size as other sub-schools. I prefer this version, in light of the content in other sub-schools. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@N sahi: I don't see Samsara/Jagat language in Das, Hiriyanna etc per your revisions to the Advaita Vedanta section. Do you? If yes, please quote a few sentences here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Hi Sarah, thanks for the suggestions. I see much merit in it. However, I would request you to wait till the weekend when I am done expanding and then condensing the content for each school. I am trying to make all points clear in a format that captures core thoughts about Brahma, Atma, the Physical Universe and other core points in the philosophy. It being the first draft, it looks a little expansive currently. Feel free to trim it wherever you find appropriate. I intend to complete this piece, like I mentioned, by the weekend. Am checking reference for Samsara...will change all Jagat / Samsara to jagat for the time being till I get references.'N sahi (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)'
<edit conflict> @N sahi: You shouldn't be checking references after adding Jagat/Samsara etc into this article. You should do it before. Please draft something in your user space sandbox (try: User:N sahi/sandbox/Vedanta). Perhaps @Joshua Jonathan who is knowledgeable on Advaita Vedanta-related pages, I and others can join you there, this weekend, when you are ready. Once we have a consensus, we can then make it live here. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: We need to consider the fact that this is an abstruse subject and needs to be presented in a manner that is easy to understand, consise and yet doesn't miss the core points. The current descriptions are way too brief and incomplete. The balance becomes crucial given that it is one of the most important articles on Indian philosophy and needs to be a truly representative article. Nevertheless, I will save my additions offline for now respecting the revert you made and put up the revisions for consideration by other editors once I am ready. 'N sahi (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)'
Thanks, and please know your efforts to improve and contribute to this article are welcome, much appreciated. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Metaphysics section[edit]

@N sahi: This is not an improvement. It is conflating concepts and OR, because that is not what the cited sources are saying. Which source is stating Brahman is always, or even most of the time is Ishvara in various schools of Hindu philosophy and Vedanta sub-schools in particular? Much of the text you added under "Brahman / Ishvara" is unsourced, despite caution from @Joshua Jonathan to rely on WP:RS. Please don't. This is more of "Samsara / Jagat" style edits; see my comments on this talk page above. I am reverting that subsection to the previous version (much of which is from earlier wonderful editors, whoever they are, before you or I started editing this article). Let us gain consensus either in your sandbox draft, or here on the talk page for this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah welch:The entire section on Brahman is sourced from Chari. Feel free to verify the source. I believe Chari has all qualifications to be called RS. 'N sahi (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)'
@@Sarah welch:: To explain it further...Ishvara is used only for Vishishtadvaita. That is the word used in this school. To give a header to cover the same, I have used Brahma / Ishvara. Check Chari again. 'N sahi (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)'
@N sahi: You shouldn't generalize Visistadvaita Vedanta as all of Vedanta, nor use a study of one text Tattvamuktākalāpa from Visistadvaita Vedanta to all of Vedanta. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@@Sarah welch:: Not generalizing anything. The book is not just about Tattvamuktākalāpa or Visistadvaita. References from multiple sources apart from Tattvamuktākalāpa has been covered. Also, the portion quotes is squarely from Shankara, not Ramanuja or Vedanta Desika. Look at footnotes 1 & 2 on Page 383. The final chapter is the author's synthesis, not Vedant Desika's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N sahi (talkcontribs)
@N sahi: Based on Tattvamuktākalāpa. Vedanta is more than Advaita and Visistadvaita . Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sarah welch - Based on Shankara's bhashya. Please go through the reference on the page suggested. No point in indulging in competitive intellectualism without even going through the source. 'N sahi (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Sarah welch: Why the current version is better? Because it explains Nirguna and Saguna which is one of the fundamental concepts in Vedanta. It is not in favour of Advaita. Nowhere have these differentiation of Brahman been talked in the article other than this section. That's a major lacunae. Chari is a very reputed source on Vedanta. The book in contention debates all philosophical issues on the subject of Vedanta. While Vishishtadvaita is a pivot, views of everyone from Advaitains to Budhhists and Jaina philosophers are examined for all epistemological, ontological and theistic perspectives. Ishvara is an important word. That has been used for Saguna Brahman in all the Vedanta schools that admit of any differentiation between Atman and Brahman. More sources can always be added and further improvements brought about. 'N sahi (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)'

@N sahi: you are biasing that section to Visistadvaita POV, and the subsection to a comparison of Advaita to Visistadvaita (from page 383 of Chari). You can add that to Vishishtadvaita article. Why is Brahman/Ishvara WP:Due here? If your goal and desire is to strengthen the explanation of Brahman, Atman etc, we can do it in a more neutral way. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sarah welch: Please prove how. Just repeating this without justification may not be convincing enough. 'N sahi (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'
@N sahi: Prove what? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sarah welch: That I am biasing the section to Vishishtadvaia POV. There are references for dvaitadvaita, advaita as well as shuddhadvaita. Please explain on the basis of the content that it biases in favour of Vishgishtadvaita, else I would consider it a non-serious accusation. 'N sahi (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@N sahi: I see support for Brahman, Atman and Prakriti in Raju and Flower (old version), but do not see support for the "three metaphysical categories" language (version you revised it to). Do you? Could you please quote a sentence or two here from Raju and Fowler, or Chari for that matter for this language. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah welch: Categories used in metaphysical discussion / speculation = Metaphysical category. Chari has an entire chapter on this. You can go through the same. 'N sahi (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)"
@N sahi: which page number(s) in Chari states these to be "three metaphysical categories"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@Sarah welch: Vishishtadvaita admits of 6 categories of dravya. Others admit only three. These three are part of the categories in Ishvara, Jiva and Prakriti. Read Chapter 1 for details. Shankara's views can be found here - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=NFmxCqxfuOsC&pg=PT35&lpg=PT35&dq=metaphysical+categories+vedanta&source=bl&ots=NulJcwiW27&sig=35162quFvuEXFOKqgZqwD3aNGig&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUwc_OvLjOAhVMtY8KHWWvCRwQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=metaphysical%20categories%20vedanta&f=false where he considers Maya and the relations as additional categories. Maya and the relations, on the other hand are refuted by qualified non-dualism and dualism. Raju and Hiriyanna talk of only the=ree. Like I mentioned before, categories put up for discussion in metaphysics is metaphysical categories. It is rather basic...like saying water is a liquid. Another one I found here, not sure about rS or otherwise, which talks of these three metaphysical categories for dvaita: http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/106069725-Dvaita-Vedanta.pdf. It is essentially summarization of Hiriyanna and others where I have used a common term. Don;t know how to explain it better. 'N sahi (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

Proposal for Brahman subsection[edit]

For concerns discussed above, I propose to replace @N sahi created Brahman / Ishvara section that is primarily Chari sourced, with the following overview sourced from multiple publications including Chari:

Brahman is a key concept in Vedanta, and connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2] It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][3]
Brahman is a Vedic Sanskrit word, where it is conceptualized states Paul Deussen, as the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[4] Brahman is a key concept found in Vedas, and extensively discussed in the early Upanishads.[5] The Vedantic Brahman is that which the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][6] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1]
Brahman is discussed as either Nirguna or Saguna or both in the Vedanta subschools, both in monist and dualistic bhakti sub-traditions.[7] Nirguna (nirvisesa) Brahman has been the concept of the Ultimate Reality as formless, without attributes or quality.[8] Saguna (savisesa) ) Brahman, in contrast, has been envisioned and developed as one with form, attributes and quality.[8] The Nirguna and Saguna ideas are found in the Bhagavad Gita.[7][9] It is the same Brahman, but viewed from two perspectives, one from Nirguni knowledge-focus and other from Saguni devotional-love-focus.[9][10] In the Advaita school, the impersonal Nirguna Brahman is emphasized; in Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita, personal Saguna Brahman is.[11] In the dualistic schools of Vedanta, Brahman is sometimes referred to as Ishvara.[12]

References

  1. ^ a b c James Lochtefeld, Brahman, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A–M, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-0823931798, page 122
  2. ^ a b PT Raju (2006), Idealistic Thought of India, Routledge, ISBN 978-1406732627, page 426 and Conclusion chapter part XII
  3. ^ Mariasusai Dhavamony (2002), Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Theological Soundings and Perspectives, Rodopi Press, ISBN 978-9042015104, pages 43-44
  4. ^ Paul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120814684, page 91
  5. ^ Stephen Philips (1998), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Brahman to Derrida (Editor; Edward Craig), Routledge, ISBN 978-0415187077, pages 1-4
  6. ^ Jeffrey Brodd (2009), World Religions: A Voyage of Discovery, Saint Mary's Press, ISBN 978-0884899976, pages 43-47
  7. ^ a b Karen Pechilis Prentiss (2014), The Embodiment of Bhakti, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195351903, page 21
  8. ^ a b Jeaneane D. Fowler (2012), The Bhagavad Gita, Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 978-1845193461, pages xxvii-xxxiv
  9. ^ a b Jeaneane D. Fowler (2012), The Bhagavad Gita, Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 978-1845193461, pages 207-211
  10. ^ Jessica Frazier and Gavin Flood (2011), The Continuum Companion to Hindu Studies, Bloomsbury Academic, ISBN 978-0826499660, pages 113-115
  11. ^ Chari 1988, pp. 231-232.
  12. ^ Chari 1988, p. 212.

I also would like to recover the old Nicholson sourced content which @N sahi removed from the Metaphysics section, as it adds balance and improves the article. Comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reply by N sahi[edit]

My comments as follows:

"Brahman is a key concept in Vedanta, and connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2] It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][3]"
Superfluous. Already mentioned in introduction and other places. Also, presents dualistic and qualified non-dualistic perspective alone. Non-dual Brahman is not credited with any creation. As it is a piece on Vedanta, we cant have commentaries placing one school over other but should give a gist summarizing all ideas fairly.
"Brahman is a Vedic Sanskrit word, where it is conceptualized states Paul Deussen, as the "creative principle which lies realized in the whole world".[4] Brahman is a key concept found in Vedas, and extensively discussed in the early Upanishads.[5]"
Superfluous and not relevant to the context. If at all it has to be added, needs to be moved to etymology section or there should be a section on key terms where the metaphysical categories should be described.
"The Vedantic Brahman is that which the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][6] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1]"
This is not the Vedantic Brahman but the Advaitic Brahman.
"Brahman is discussed as either Nirguna or Saguna or both in the Vedanta subschools, both in monist and dualistic bhakti sub-traditions.[7] Nirguna (nirvisesa) Brahman has been the concept of the Ultimate Reality as formless, without attributes or quality.[8] Saguna (savisesa) ) Brahman, in contrast, has been envisioned and developed as one with form, attributes and quality.[8]"
Needs to be further supported by how one stands for the Absolute and the other for the Personal God respectively and how Vishishtadvaita and other schools consider saguna as Absolute parabrhaman and completely reject the nirguna brahman.
"The Nirguna and Saguna ideas are found in the Bhagavad Gita.[7][9]"
Completely superfluous. Please read section on Prasthanatrayee. All that is discussed in Vedanta has been referred to from the Upanishads, the Brahma Sutras as well as the Bhagvad Gita. What is so special about it being in Bhagvad Gita?
General comments - Put this way, it disturbs the flow of the section. The section is not supposed to be an elucidation of metaphysical categories but giving a brief understanding of how different schools approach the categories differently. Rather than copy-pasting from multiple sources to make a heterogeneous non-congealing mass of disjointed information, we should keep the subject matter knowledge in perspective and the summary should be representative of and true to the details. These philosophies are all quite intricate and it will help to immerse oneself in those for sometime before summarizing without forming the complete picture. 'N sahi (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

References

  1. ^ a b c James Lochtefeld, Brahman, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Vol. 1: A–M, Rosen Publishing. ISBN 978-0823931798, page 122
  2. ^ a b PT Raju (2006), Idealistic Thought of India, Routledge, ISBN 978-1406732627, page 426 and Conclusion chapter part XII
  3. ^ Mariasusai Dhavamony (2002), Hindu-Christian Dialogue: Theological Soundings and Perspectives, Rodopi Press, ISBN 978-9042015104, pages 43-44
  4. ^ Paul Deussen, Sixty Upanishads of the Veda, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120814684, page 91
  5. ^ Stephen Philips (1998), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Brahman to Derrida (Editor; Edward Craig), Routledge, ISBN 978-0415187077, pages 1-4
  6. ^ Jeffrey Brodd (2009), World Religions: A Voyage of Discovery, Saint Mary's Press, ISBN 978-0884899976, pages 43-47
  7. ^ a b Karen Pechilis Prentiss (2014), The Embodiment of Bhakti, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0195351903, page 21
  8. ^ a b Jeaneane D. Fowler (2012), The Bhagavad Gita, Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 978-1845193461, pages xxvii-xxxiv
  9. ^ Jeaneane D. Fowler (2012), The Bhagavad Gita, Sussex Academic Press, ISBN 978-1845193461, pages 207-211

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@N sahi: Thanks for the effort. Let us take this one item at a time. For the sentence, "It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists." you allege, "Superfluous. Already mentioned in introduction and other places." Please identify which section of the current version of this article has this? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sarah welch - You just broke down your sentence into two. Let me explain -
Part 1 - Brahman is a key concept in Vedanta
I comment, not allege -explained earlier in introduction and pother places.
Part 2 - It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.
Again I comment, not allege - Also, presents dualistic and qualified non-dualistic perspective alone. Non-dual Brahman is not credited with any creation. As it is a piece on Vedanta, we cant have commentaries placing one school over other but should give a gist summarizing all ideas fairly.
Hope I made myself clear. 'N sahi (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)'

Reply by Joshua Jonathan[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan: What are your thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I start reading through MSW's proposal now, and will comment on-the-fly; there-after, I'll read the comments of both of you.
  • "highest Universal Principle" - 'highest unifying essence' ('dhattu', nature); 'unsublatable (was that the word?) highest Real', as in 'really existing', that is, without changing;
  • "Ultimate Reality" - not "Reality," but "Real"; 'unsublatable';
  • "The Vedantic Brahman is that which the pervasive" - "The Vedantic Brahman is that which is the pervasive";
  • "does not change" - a link or note would be helpfull, which explains the notion of 'changelessness'; compare the heart of the axle around which a wheel turns;
  • "the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe" - not "unity behind," but 'unified ground', or single Real, something like that. "All that exists" is maya; Brahman is the ultimate Real before Maya.
Sorry, no references; this is my personal understanding, based on personal 'mystical experience' (which is definitely not WP:RS and my reading and understanding of WP:RS.
N sani may have a point, when he seems to state that there may be too much Advaita in this description of Brahman. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @JJ: Thanks for joining the discussion. I agree we should not overemphasize Advaita (or any specific school of Vedanta). Compare the draft above to the version in the article, primarily single sourced (Chari), which is a Vishistadvaita book/perspective (Chari is worth a mention, but with care). We need to summarize the mainstream scholarship by relying on WP:Tertiary reviews on Brahman in Vedanta. I am willing to reread and strengthen this part. We can remove parts you are concerned about, and add more from texts such as Fowler review book, which for example has three big chapters on Dvaita, Advaita and Vishistadvaita, as chapters 8, 9, 10. I will welcome if you merge the draft above and @N sahi versions, the old version before @N sahi rewrote it (which had Nicholson, see below), and add your own. Your and other editors participation, will help us reach a collaborative consensus and improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nicholson[edit]

I also would like to recover the old Nicholson sourced content which @N sahi removed from the Metaphysics section, as it adds balance and improves the article. Comments welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Which info are you referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
@JJ: See this old version of Metaphysics section, before @N sahi edit. The info I am referring to starts with "All schools of Vedanta subscribe to the theory..." and Nicholson is cite [63] in there. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Neo-Vedanta[edit]

In existing form, this section is a very difficult read with little or no structure to the flow of thoughts. In my efforts to clean u and copy-edit this article, I have come a dead-end in this section. Requesting the exerts to help. @Joshua Jonathan:@Ms Sarah Welch:@N sahi:. 'Nrityam (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2016 (UTC)'

Made another attempt. Thinks it looks much better now. Comments welcome. Nrityam (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@Nrityam: Made some changes myself. Certainly looks much better than before. N sahi (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Missing references[edit]

I have fixed the style errors with references. The following references are still missing:

  • Doniger 1996 (Perhaps Doniger 1986?)
  • Nicholson 2016
  • Staal 2009
  • Clooney 2001 (Perhaps Clooney 2000?)
  • Nakamura 2004
  • Buitenin 2008
  • McMahan 2008

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Indeed. @Nrityam: please consider withdrawing the GA nomination, because this article is far from ready for a GA review. This article needs significant copyediting, fixing of spelling/grammar/etc errors, reformatting of cites to a consistent GA format, and source checks to address missing references as identified by @Kautilya3 above. You may wish to request help through through WP:GOCE for collaborative improvement to address some of these issues. The article looks much better than it was few months ago, but it needs some more wordsmith-ing and bit more balance (see the Brahman concept comments above for example). After these are addressed, a future GA nomination may be appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Cheers! Really appreciate the great work. Taught me a few useful things. Nrityam (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks! Put the request through WP:GOCE and removed the nomination. Will work on the Brahman piece. Nrityam (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)