Talk:Ram Dass/Archive 1

Hindu?

Ram Dass was a Hindu?! In Be Here now he said hinduism was gauche and that he was atracted to buddhism.

ram dass is a self-described unaffiliated hindu. --Ganeshananda 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a source where he claims he is a Hindu. On his website, he states that he was influenced by "a panoramic array of spiritual methods and practices from potent ancient wisdom traditions, including bhakti or devotional yoga focused on the Hindu deity Hanuman; Buddhist meditation in the Theravadin, Mahayana Tibetan and Zen Buddhist schools, and Sufi and Jewish mystical studies." 1. I will remove him from the Hindu catagories for now based on this. RustDragon (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Name

I moved the page over the redirect, per Wikipedia standards, as he and everybody else have been calling him "Ram Dass" for years. Just over half the links were to Ram Dass already. ;Bear 21:53, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Please change the name of this page, as Ram Das is easily confused with Ramdas both mean the same thing but here in wiki Ramdas, is much more relevant as Ramdas was a influnetial/famous/popular saint. Where as Richard Alpert is not know here in the subcontinent as Ram Das. please change it to Richard Alpert. --Gd 09:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That would be quite inappropriate, for reasons already stated above. Ram Dass IS his name. The fact that in one place a person is not known by a particular name does not invalidate his use of the name in his own country, and the fact of his being known by that name there and many other places. Also Ram Dass is not exactly the same as Ram Das or Ramdas, and even if the names were exactly the same, Wikipedia has a way of dealing with that without trying to force a different name on one of them. (Note: I moved your writings to the proper place -- the newest goes at the bottom.) ;Bear 06:22, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

The word "prominent" appears about four times in two sentences. Maybe someone could use a thesaurus.

fixed. --Ganeshananda 18:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a Devanagri font on this system but his name is incorrect. The "Ram" of Ram Dass currently reads "Rama." Either an anusvara is necessary or it can be marked with the short mark on the bottom of "ma." The "dass" also reads "dasa" as well.

Is Ram Das a Sanskrit name? Hindi? The article should clarify. Sylvain1972 20:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sylvain1972 (talk • contribs).

Ram Dass is also Hanuman...

I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the Hanuman entry either, but I think it's important to note that "Ram Dass" was previously another name for Hanuman ("Ram Dass" meaning "servant of Rama"). --Ganeshananda 22:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "Maharaj-ji" actually means "Great King"

It's my understanding that "Maharaj" means "Great King" and the "-ji" is like an extra bonus title of respect. I'm not sure how "-ji" translates, but I think "Maharaji" means something more like "Venerable Great King". --Ganeshananda 21:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I wikified the term and removed the explanatory statement. — goethean ॐ 16:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know enough to do an article on guru kripa (grace of the guru)?

I've referenced it in the Ram Dass article, but there's no wikipedia entry for it to link to. It's the only technical term without one. I could try to splash something together for it, but I really don't know enough about it specifically. --Ganeshananda 23:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC) anyone? --Ganeshananda 11:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace of Ram Dass

I've changed Ram Dass' place of birth in the main entry from Boston to Newton. Newton is just outside Boston and is pretty much considered Boston, but they're definitely separate. When his place of birth is listed as Boston, I'm not sure if its an error or an geographical over-generalization. Either way, I'm pretty sure he's from Newton, not Boston. I lived in Newton for a bit near where he grew up and have even talked to him about it. That being said, I'm not sure if the category of people from Boston should be removed from the entry. And what is the person data that shows up on the edit page but not the front page? That also lists his birth place as Boston. --Ganeshananda 06:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC) hahaha, i was rewatching fierce grace and saw that the movie even says hes from boston, but his house was in newton im pretty sure. im sure he was delivered in a hospital in boston if he was born around there. i think im just splitting hairs now. still, it is an encyclopedia afterall, right? --Ganeshananda 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

idealogy?

I'm not sure that 'idealogy' should be used over 'ideology.' Merriam Webster lists idealogy as a variant on ideology; however not all dictionaries list idealogy at all, e.g., Mac OS X dictionary and the wiktionary. Ok, so those aren't the most authoritative references, but still, 'ideology' is a much more common form. Rather than confusing people (and frequently reverting "typo" edits), why not use 'ideology' instead? Is there any difference in meaning between the words?  — vijay (Talk) 21:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

alright alright. but it was never a typo. --Ganeshananda 02:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC) still, i suppose i shouldnt be so stubborn. --Ganeshananda 02:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

no worries. It may also be a British English (and therefore Indian English) form?  — vijay (Talk) 18:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, no idea. --Ganeshananda 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

meaning of "Ram Dass"

the parenthetical clarification of "Ram Dass" has been changed from "servant of God" to "servant of Ram (God)" to "servant of Ram (a Hindu god). however, i think one of the first two are definitely the best. to say that "Ram Dass" means the servant of a particular god is a pretty short-sighted view of Hinduism and, in my opinion, gives the wrong impression of Hinduism and, perhaps more importantly here, Ram Dass' spiritual views and the actual meaning of his name. Ram is just one of the many names and faces of saguna brahman (God). Ram Dass certainly does not believe in and worship one particular god of a set of others. he understands that they are all just metaphors for the same thing - God, the universe, the Tao, the void (sunyata)... ram dass is not just a picky polytheist. so, im going to change it back to the second option, but this is definitely something open to interpretation and am certainly willing to hear anyones opinion to the contrary. if the reader is confused, he can always just click the "Ram" internal link.--Ganeshananda 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the parenthetical note for stylistic reasons. Given your comments above, I would rather that the article say: "servant of God". — goethean ॐ 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds good to me. go for it. nice compromise.--Ganeshananda 21:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

on ram dass' sexuality

this is something that apparently needs to be settled through dialogue. in my opinion (and in ram dass' if i understand him correctly), his sexuality is about his ego, not his soul, message, or lifes work. besides, you dont see in every other wikipedia article "Einstein - an important 20th century physicist, and a noted heterosexual..." his being bisexual does not define him, it is just something that he happens to be. i think shining a spotlight on it serves mostly as a distraction since egos are not whats important, but sharing the message of love and harmony. i think that should remain at the forefront of the article. there is a clearly marked link where ram dass is interviewed about his sexual preference and what it means to him. it is a footnote as is every aspect of his ego in his life. --Ganeshananda 21:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with your point about the emphasis of Ram Dass's sexuality on his life. However, the argument saying that "Einstien ... a noted heterosexual" is rarely seen is not to the point. Consider if Einstien had been known to be bisexual or gay. It would be quite surprising, then, if the article left out mention of his sexuality. Just as women, African-Americans, and, indeed, all minorities have struggled for recognition, the LGBT (to lump a whole lot of people together) people of the world struggle for recognition. One would hardly expect an article on George Washington Carver not to mention his race. However, an article on Bill Gates would rarely be found saying, "Bill...is a anglo-american entreprenuer." Of course, in a better world race would be notable irrespective of the race in question, and similarly with sexual orientation. Hopefully, reminding people that there are female scientists, african-american inventors, buddhist punk-rockers, and bisexual spiritual leaders will help us reach a point where mentioning these qualifiers will be irrelevant. I don't think we're there yet.

Furthermore, Ram Dass doesn't consider his sexuality to be irrelevant. For instance, regarding the absence of any discussion of his sexuality in the film Fierce Grace, the San Fransico Chronicle reported in 2002:

"All that stuff went on the cutting-room floor," Ram Dass told me last week.

"I've had a hard time getting my homosexuality into my drama. Most of my friends don't like that I'm homosexual. They dissuade me from coming out. They feel people would have attitudes, would be put off by it." —full article

And, although Ram Dass may feel that his sexuality is merely an aspect of ego and, consequently, does not define him, on Wikipedia, and eleswhere, biographical articles tend to focus on the aspects of individual's personalities — not their god-consiousness. Ram Dass may "just be" bisexual, but he also "just is" a spiritual leader. Wikipedia is simply an encyclopedia. It does not exclude information based on what an individual hopes her/his "message" is. Nor does it need exclude much information at all, given that it is not paper.

I guess all of that is to say, I think that while Ram Dass's sexuality should not be in his introductory sentence (because it is not what he is known for), it could certainly be mentioned in the article, as it is a documented fact. Hope that all makes sense and seems reasonable.  — vijay (Talk) 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds reasonable to me. i dont think it should be in the summary sentence because it makes it seem as if its equally important as all of his lifes work. ram dass doesnt lie about his sexuality but he doesnt seem to be very 'open' about it in his talks, lectures, books, videos, and so on. considering this article is a biography of a living person is it wikipedias job to out people who dont want to be outted, just because its a fact? --Ganeshananda 05:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) also i dont think he should be used unwillingly by some in the LGBT community as a tool for recognition. certainly not on wikipedia. --Ganeshananda 05:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Any known fact of importance to any reader of wikipedia can and should be included in the article if it can be sourced. In this particular case, it would certainly not be outting someone who doesn't want to be outted. I agree that we probably won't be seeing Ram Dass in a pride march, because I believe that he does not consider his sexuality to be something worth focusing on. On the other hand, I imagine he would encourage anyone to explore the sexual nature of their existence because he would encourage anyone to fully explore their entire existence. That all being speculative, however, means it has no bearing on the article.

The article doesn't need to be a biography that fits with a living persons message — it needs to create an encyclopedic body of knowledeg about that person. To that end, the information presented needs to be verifiable and notable (though primarilly the former). Ram Dass's sexuality is certainly the former, and presumably the latter for many people. Therefore, there is no reason to not include it.

At this point, however, I could only see adding something like

==Sexuality==

Ram Dass first came out as bisexual in an interview with someone at sometime.[cite]

which doesn't fit well with the article's structure as it is now. So, I feel like it should be added when it can be done in a more "quality" manner. So that's where I stand. — vijay is now Gogobera 02:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree. --Ganeshananda 08:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a few lines about it. -Will Beback · † · 19:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you should label the man as gay --- Ram Dass said this:

"I would say that if gay people who read this are willing to really sit down and examine their own minds in a systematic way, they may experience the freedom to take more delight in life and in their gay expression of it. And they will see that who they are isn't gay, and it's not not-gay, and it's not anything--it's just awareness . I really challenge them to make that exploration on their own before they write the script of their lives in stone too much. Because if they have picked up a book that's called Gay Soul, they're asking for it. And if they're asking for it, they should be able to get it. Somebody should say, "Look, don't get trapped in that. Get on with it." There's no need to label yourself at all."

So don't write the script of HIS life like that. Just put a couple of quotes in there from the man himself. If nobody objects, I will make the changes. [1] Pgc512 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is my revision:

Throughout his public life, Ram Dass acknowledged his bi-sexuality. In the 1990's, he became more forthcoming concerning his homosexuality [2] while avoiding labels and pointing out that who we are "isn't gay, and it's not not-gay, and it's not anything--it's just awareness". [3]

After I finish editing it, I will copy it into the main article. Pgc512 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the LGBT writers category. 'Bisexual writers' is sufficient. It is not helpful to elect RD to 'clubs' as he has taken a strong stand against such labels. Pgc512 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see where the subject refers to his homosexuality. I don't see where he refers to his bisexuality. What's the source for that? -Will Beback · † · 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the way he referred to himself around the time of Be Here Now (1971). Pgc512 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Source? I do see that in the 1990s he talked about his homosexuality. Why would we favor his earlier remarks over his later ones? If we want to give a fuller description, and can find the sources, we could say that he regarded himself as bisexual in the 1970s and homosexual in the 1990s. I don't see the justification for simply calling him "bisexual". -Will Beback · † · 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The source sould be Be Here Now and/or some of the books/tapes he produced around that time. This is the way I see it - in the 70s and later, he admitted to having bisexual experiences - meaning he had both heterosexual and homosexual experiences - in the 90's he talked more about being a homosexual but also about not being labeled . So, all in all, it seems we have a person who during the course of his life has had both homosexual and heterosexual experiences, but resists being labeled or being categorized as being in one group or another. His notability and his work and his message certainly does not center on or focus on his sexuality ... Pgc512 02:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This biography is about the man. We have one or more articles about his books. Being labelled a bisexual is no less a label than being labelled a homosexual. The fact that he doesn't like labels doesn't make then any the less true. Many gay men have had sex with women but decide they prefer sex with men. We have several references to him being homosexual, but we still don't have any for him being bisexual. I read Be Here Now a long time ago - where does he discuss bisexuality? -Will Beback · † · 03:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to an interview from the late 80's [4]. In it, he says "I've been bisexual all my life ..." and goes on to talk about having two ongoing separate live-together relationships - one with a man and the other with a woman. Pgc512 12:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That'll do. Thanks, -Will Beback · † · 20:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

i believe at one point in college ram dass was engaged to a woman and was also having sexual relations with men during his engagement. im not sure where this is talked about but if i remember correctly the book "Can't Find My Way Home: America in the Great Stoned Age" deals with ram dass' sexuality and history. --Ganeshananda 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

also just wanted to say that i think the paragraph on ram dass' sexuality is excellent as it stands now. good job guys. theres the dialectic in full effect. --Ganeshananda 11:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Will and Ganeshananda, I think it is a 'good enough' also. Pgc512 17:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While I don’t object to the interesting discussion, I think it is ironic that a life-issue which Ram Dass endeavored to accept-without-emphasizing, and encouraged others to do likewise, has generated nearly 2,000 words here! Some homosexuals and bisexuals (as I reckon do the vast majority of heterosexuals) choose not to create an identity which revolves around their sexual orientation or sexual preference. Although considering homosexuality as central to one’s identity would seem to be the “politically correct” cultural norm in the first decade of the 21st Century, it is hardly requisite, it is merely one mode of expression, and the one that gets the most public discussion and media coverage for obvious reasons. Worth mentioning here? Yes. Worth emphasizing? No. Worth pointing out that Ram Dass felt that "sexual orientation" be accepted and not made central to one's identity? Yes! Absolutely! 61.91.165.92 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Rex

Maharajji

Namaste-

Thank You for joining me here at Ram Dass's Article. Although the article is about Ram Dass,the reason he is in Wikipedia in the first place is because of Maharajji. The first paragraph states that Ram Dass was known for his " association" with Neem Karoli Baba. This is shameful! Do we say that Mathew, Mark, Luke & John are known for thier " association" with Jesus ? We read the New Testiment because we want to hear the stories about Jesus. If they did not become deciples,and write about it, no one in history would know of them. There is almost no information about Maharajji, other than his name.

Most of the discussion on this "discussion page" is about the "name" Ram Dass, and his sexuality, not the heart of the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Ladd (talk • contribs) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The heart of the story is how Dr. Alpert was taught,disiplined, changed and enlightened by Maharajji thru the "Miricle of Love". Since Maharajji manifested many of the same miricles as Jesus, we are better able to understand Jesus by learing the stories of Maharajji. It's as if the New Testiment is a movie in Black & White and "Miricle of Love" is a similar movie in color. And the guy who is telling the story is Ram Dass,sitting in the front of the room is Ram Dass, who I can see with my own two eyes. The words and stories of Maharajji are passed along to us thru Ram Dass.Ram Dass helped the world discover Maharajji. Ram Dass's profound love of Maharijji's is the story,the article. Ram Dass has introduced us to a Saint. Ram Dass has taught us how to hang out & act in his presence of a Saint, how to "Be" with a Saint.

Inspired ? Joe Bill Ladd (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section on the Documentary Ram Dass Fierce Grace JoeBill Ladd (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

George415

can someone block this guy from the article. he insists on changing major parts of the article that are correct and replacing them with misinformation, like changing all the hindu instances to buddhist. ram dass is not buddhist. ram dass is hindu. hindu, hindu, hindu. --Ganeshananda 18:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ive already had to go back and fix it twice in the past week or so.

In Be Here Now, Ram Dass says he was repelled by Hinduism and everything in the book indicates he became a Buddhist like me. My writing is great and my info is correct. I will not go away. This article is bad but I can make it better.George415 20:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You clearly neither read the whole book nor any other book by Ram Dass. He was simply describing a phase he was going through, something many seekers did. He ended up a devotee of Neem Karoli Baba and a Hindu. I know the man. IPSOS (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You know the man? What of it? That means nothing. It is a good book but it needed to be proofread.George415 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unicode please

The name in the top of the article that is presumably intended to be in Devanagari comes out as just a bunch of question marks. It should be entered in Unicode; there's no other right way to put it in. With Unicode if you can't see Om here -> ॐ <- then the problem is with your machine; it needs a brain transplant. Without Unicode all bets are off. Almost nobody will see the right stuff. ;Bear 05:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ram Dass

Note from Ling.Nut (talk) : This is not my post. I found it tacked atop this page in an inappropriate place. Refactoring. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And I then refactored it here (it was originally posted on the WP:FACT page.) —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 15:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am writing to you about the post on Ram Dass (Richard Alpert) at the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Dassarticle

You have mentioned that Ram Dass means the servant of God. This is not correct. Bhagwan Dass (the name of Ram Dass's Guru) is the word for "servant of God". Ram Dass means Servant of Ram - Ram, being the north-Indian name for Rama, who is one of the 10 incarnations of Lord Vishnu (one of the manifestations of the Supreme Being - Paramaathma - in the Hindu system of Religion) I hope you would make this correction.

Vasuerfolg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasuerfolg (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Two Changes

"From the perspective of his massive stroke" sounds like the film was written from the stroke's perspective. Also, the complimentary quote "RAM DASS FIERCE GRACE offers an engrossing, poignant meditation on consciousness, healing and the unexpected grace of aging" is unattributed. If this is something Newsweek said, IMO it can be returned to the article with the the addition of the words "in Newsweek's words", or preferably the name of the reporter/journalist who said it. Rosencomet (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The Inevitable "Lost" Question

I apologize if this has been asked somewhere before, but I scanned the discussion and archive pages before deciding to ask. Has there been, or should there be, in this article, some brief mention of the Richard Alpert character from the TV show "Lost"? The show is clearly influenced by Ram Dass - the character's name is the same as Ram Dass' birth name; the show features the Hanso Foundation, Ram Dass founded the Hanuman Foundation, etc. Sorry to say I do not know enough about Ram Dass' teachings to compare them with the themes highlighted in the show, but the show's creators are at the very least offering him a major homage.

I mean no disrespect, but is popular culture's awareness and adoption of Ram Dass in this way worthy of any mention here? Applejuicefool (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that document this connection (for example, published interviews with the show's creators), then the answer is a resounding yes. If not, then at best this is unsourced original research and by Wikipedia's guidelines cannot be included.TheRingess (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll see what I can find. Applejuicefool (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, a very brief web search led me to this interview in which Lost executive producer Damon Lindelof says that the Richard Alpert character "is...named after someone famous, but you're gonna have to look it up for yourself." The quote is in the response to the interviewer's question "Is Hawking named after Stephen Hawking? Why doesn't he get old?" In another quote a couple of lines deeper into the interview (in response to "Is there any explanation for selecting the names of Locke, Rousseau, Hume for some characters?") Lindelof says that the listed characters are named after "...world famous philosophers whose writings we liberally steal and infuse into the show." I know Alpert's name is not on the list, but it shows a pattern in their naming process. Applejuicefool (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say that doesn't qualify. Since the show's creators left it up to the audience to decide, a mention here would be pure speculation, something deprecated by the Wikipedia community. It's little more than trivia of interest only to fans of the show, so it's debatable whether or not any kind of mention is encyclopedic. So I say leave it out for now. Cheers.TheRingess (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Some people may not know the show. Could possible contributions from Ram Dass' philosophy or way of life to the show be discussed here? e.g. I remember that meditating, spooky man. He sure was deep and helped find the kid's lost dog (had no ego).Twipley (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

LGBT

The BLP policy says that people can be categorized as LGBT (or whatever) if two conditions are both met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
• The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

The article quotes RD as saying who we are "isn't gay, and it's not not-gay, and it's not anything—it's just awareness." This doesn't sound like he "self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question". So I will remove the LGBT categories in a few days. Pgc512 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember Be Here Now

Hi to all. The actual name of the book is 'Remember Be Here Now', which also acts as an instruction, lesson, and guide. Added the changes and moved the name on the link article. How many copies of the book have been sold by now? (The older editions used to include a number of books printed). Thanks for the great page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Love Serve Remember 6-album box set from 1973

Also added the 1973 box set, Love Serve Remember (forgot to log in, happens once in awhile) and found out it was reissued in '008 only in an MP3 format. Please add the set to any appropriate links. Thanks again, Randy Kryn (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations?

I'm a newbie, so forgive me if I'm being dense, but I see a lot of pages with [citation needed] strewn throughout, and in this (Richard Alpert's bio) page there seem to be a lot of very definite details about private occurrences that aren't linked to third-party sources.

Is that a problem, or are there varying standards for different types of topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acmdas (talk • contribs) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As a newbie, I apparently behaved badly and didn't "sign" this with four tildes...sorry, here goes. TheDavid (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Life at Millbrook

I have to question whether the Grateful Dead and Ken Kesey were truly part of "what was going on" at Millbrook. According to Tom Wolfe's "The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" Kesey's visit with his famous bus (which included at least one future member of the Grateful Dead's tech crew) was a brief, disappointing and inconsequential visit. Neal Casady referred to the Milbrook scene as "the crypt trip." Any sources say that Kesey or other members of the Dead ever visited again? The Dead after all were based on the west coast and the Millbrook era for Alpert and Leary was short-lived, thanks to repeated FBI raids.Markdf10825 (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Leary's Dead Special Addition

Ram Bass features in this documentary, particularly in the Special features. He has incredible stories of the adventures of his life.

"Timothy Leary's Dead" Special Addition Copyright 1998 Paul Davis and Todd Easton Mills

Darkmattermonkey (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Darkmattermonkey (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2010

Religion

This is a tricky question. We know he has a guru/chela relationship with Maharaj-ji, but he is still Jewish, and he has actively practiced many other religions. he may be considered a perennial philosopher, or a believer in "Sophia Perennis". I dont think saying he stopped being Jewish in 1967 is accurate, as he wasnt practicing the religion before that date, and probably was more actively jewish afterwards in later years. He never renounced it either. PS: his book is overwhelming known as "be here now", the word "remember" doesnt appear on the spine of the book or the identifying page (specifically, the book cost distribution page). the copyright page is mute on the subject, unfortunately, thus the confusion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A valid point. I've changed this to Jewish (born) in the infobox as the notion of ceasing to be a Jew is absurd in most interpretations of halakhic and Israel law. Dass seems to have never acquired Jewish beliefs, though he certainly was culturally Jewish by birth.--Louiedog (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCAT. Unless we have reference supporting the subject's self-identification as a practicing Jew, we cannot list Judaism or Jewish in the infobox religion field or use Jewish categories. Those are the rules about specifying the religion of a living subject. He is clearly ethnically Jewish. For that we use the ethnicity infobox field (not present in all infoboxs) and the "of Jewish descent" categories. This individual is a well-known self-professed American Hindu. The only religions we are allowed to state in the article are supportably self-professed ones. Yworo (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Turns out that he was actually an atheist prior to 1967. While he had a bar mitzvah, he describes himself as “inured to religion. I didn’t have one whiff of God until I took psychedelics.” We certainly can't say he considered Judaism his religion. He actually considered himself a scientific atheist prior to his conversion. Yworo (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"He actually considered himself a scientific atheist" As most American Jews do. That's seriously about as religious as Einstein, Ben Bernanke, Jon Stewart, or most of these guys are. Not applying "Jewish" here would be inconsistent with a lot of examples.--Louiedog (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Read the rules. If any living people are being described as being of the Judaic religion while actually professing themselves as atheist, those article or lists are violating WP:BLP and need to be fixed. This is established policy. Yworo (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Identifying as a secular Jew does not permit setting of the "religion" field in the infobox. A person must identify as a practicing or observant Jew, otherwise they are discussing ethnicity and tribal identification, not religious identification. Sorry. Yworo (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC religion

In addition to Hinduism, should Ram Dass's religion also have a listing as Jewish?

Background: Ram Dass was born to a Jewish family and went through the rituals necessary to complete a Bar Mitzvah.

Sources for consideration:

• He considered himself “inured to religion" and "didn’t have one whiff of God until I took psychedelics.”[5] "
• Although Ram Dass always acknowledged being a Jew, his public comments were limited to self-deprecating jokes about Jewish angst."[6].

Additional consideration regarding Who is a Jew? may be relevant as Jews who are actually atheist (and many are) or who convert to other religions are often still recognized as Jewish, especially by halakhic and Israel law. Yworo argues this is not relevant because Dass does not personally identify as Jewish. I believe the quote in the Sentinel article posted above demonstrates his self-identifying as Jewish. Request outside comment on appropriate resolution. Thank you.--Louiedog (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither halakhic nor Israel law seem relevant. He may possibly be ethnically Jewish, but if he states that he "didn’t have one whiff of God until I took psychedelics" he cannot reasonably be described as being Jewish by religion before that, I'd have thought. Frankly though, we don't seem to have anything that looks particularly WP:RS for his ethnicity either - NNDB isn't remotely reliable, as has repeatedly been pointed out at WP:RSN, and the Bernard Starr article on ReligionAndSpirituality.com looks questionable too: "All opinions expressed on this website belong to the writers alone, and are not necessarily shared by ReligionAndSpirituality.com..." [7]. I'd suggest that before we get into too much of a discussion about his faith, we find better sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would think that the Sentinel source [8] qualifies.--Louiedog (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry - I'd been looking at the wrong source - it is fine for his ethnicity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

For the religion field, he must not only identify as of Jewish ethnicity, he must explicitly identify as an adherent or practitioner of the religion. That he has not done. The Sentinal source is of course fine for establishing Jewish ethnicity, which is really not in question here. Yworo (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the Grump in that if someone doesn't identify as a religious Jew, they are not one as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Regarding the sunsentinal.com source, exploring your roots is something entirely different to converting to a religion. --FormerIP (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This opens another question, what of Category:Jewish American writers, which Yworo removed? Is is applicable if we're agreeing that he's ethnically Jewish?--Louiedog (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Climb the category tree. It's in the Category:American people by religion tree, so it implies religion=Judaism. Yworo (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But it also includes "American writers by ethnic or national origin" in its tree top.

And then there's the tree of Category:American_Jews where you get both "American people by ethnic or national origin" "American people by religion" AND "American people of Jewish descent". Ram Dass would possibly fit there for two tree tops, but not the third.

And since it's relevant, the category:Jewish actors has "Actors by ethnicity" while category:Jewish comedians has no such clarity.--Louiedog (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, due to persistent abuse, the category system is messed up. But if a category in any way implies religion, it can't be used to label a secular Jew, regardless of whether it is also included in Jewish ethnicity trees. Of course, this applies only to living people. By organizing the categories in the fashion they are organized, many people cannot be put into the category until they are deceased. Fixing the problem is a major undertaking made more difficult by the many editors who refuse to make a distinction between Jewish ethnicity and adherence to Judaism as a religion. It's a shame, but that's pretty much the way it is. WP:BLPCAT would suggest that even living adherents of Judaism should not be in these categories unless their writing or art or whatever they do is related to Judaism, in any case. That is, the category must be significant to their notability, not that they just happen to be a writer and happen to be Jewish, but that they are writing about Judaism... Yworo (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But that makes the inclusion of religion as part of a category's flavor completely overrule its other pieces. Can't we just say that because "Jewish" refers both to an ethnicity and a religion that a person belonging to either the ethnicity or the religion is included in the vague and broad label of "Jewish", the way we would count anyone who is either ethnically Danish or born in Denmark "Danish"?--Louiedog (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Read WP:BLPCAT: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Yworo (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

But for this article in particular, the article's text does thoroughly delineate the extent to which the subject has any consideration of being Jewish. The fact that he's introduced as a notable Hindu figure should dispel any ambiguity bestowed upon Dass by a category such as American Jews or American Jewish writers. The article text therefore does appropriately "disclaim" him.--Louiedog (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is that a person browsing the category page does not see this and so may make incorrect assumptions. That is, living people may never be put into a religious category tree unless they profess the religion. The details may be discussed in the article, but the category may only be added in cases where belief is unambiguous (or after they have been dead for a while, as BLP also applies to the recently deceased). People browsing the category do not click through to every article to see the qualifying text. Yworo (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that sucks, as it invalidates an entire set of ethnic categories, which at this point have probably been used that way more often than not anyway.--Louiedog (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yup, and only something like I propose below would really rectify the issue. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is that that would be mostly redundant because it would leave next to no people listed as "religious Jews". With the exception of a few highly observant Jews, the "ethnically Jewish" stamp is a byword for "modern and spiritually wandering".--Louiedog (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And yes, the situation could be improved. Really we should do away with all the "Jewish artist" and "Jewish writer" categories and replace them with "Artists of Jewish descent", "Writers of Jewish descent" in order that they may include all living secular Jews. The top of the people tree for Judaism as a religion should be changed to "Adherents of Judaism" and this language should be used throughout the category. That is, we need two trees, one for ethnicity, one for religion. I've suggested this in the past, but apparently its too big a job with too much opposition. The current categories work as expected for deceased persons, but should only be used for truly significant cases for living people. Yworo (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In a cursory search of Google books, I found several references to Ram Dass as being of Jewish descent but none that identified his religion as Jewish. In fact, the accounts I found make clear his ambivalence about the religion. The only remark on the subject I found from Ram Dass himself was in a brief passage in Be Here Now: "My Judaism was a political Judaism. I came out of a tradition of folk religion - the spirit escaped me somehow, although we did all the Yom Kippur and Passover Services. But Dad was on the Board of Trustees that hired and fired Rabbis, so how could I get into a feeling with a spiritual leader if my father was hiring and firing these guys." Based on this brief research and WP standards, I would oppose listing his religion as Jewish, even during his early years, unless we had references to support it. On the other hand, based on numerous sources, including the above quote, unquestionably his ethnic (folk) background is Jewish. Allreet (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Allreet's source above pretty well ends the religion/Judaism connection. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I support the present infobox listing of ethnicity as Jewish and religion as Hindu. I do not think this article should be included in a category that implies Ram Dass's religion is Jewish, but it sounds like the Jewish ethnicity vs. religion distinction ought to be sorted out on the Category talk page(s). WikiDao ☯ 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC Comment: It seems to me that the evidence is insufficient to state that Ram Dass would qualify as a religious Jew. There is a separate question regarding the matter of categorization. I can see how it might be useful to have separate categories for ethnic and religious Jews by occupations, which would serve as limited subcategories of Jews by occupations, and perhaps used only in those cases where the individual belongs only to one of the two fields, ethnic and religious. However, were such a category to be created, I would think that the appropriate forum would be one of the Judaism-related project talk pages. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support Yes, in the infobox, present both "Jewish (YYYY-YYYY); Hindu (YYYY-YYYY)". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide some reasoning for why you think this should be the case. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the sources cited, he never identified with Judaism, so there is no applicable date range. Yworo (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment from RFC: His ethnicity may or may not be Jewish but from what was presented his religion certainly is not. The religion box should not say he Jewish and he should not added to related religion based categories. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• RFC Comment: Ram Dass no longer professes to be practicing Judaism nor any variant thereof. He is a known teacher in Hinduism and has been for a long time. I think it pointless to give his religion as Judaism; I think it a simple solution to leave things as they are with ethnicity as Jewish and Religion as Hinduism. After 30+ years in Hinduism he is hardly a Jew.Whiteguru (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)