Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Intro line.

In the intro, the description of academic studies is slightly incorrect., None of the scholars directly wanted to study the sexuality; Based on their analysis, they drew their conclusions, and the conclusions differ amount the scholars. And few of the scholars have not done any orignial research ( William Radice, larson, ) they are reviewing the published stuff; Moreover, I see quite a lot of papers related to growth of a religious organisation, and similar stuff; So Need to capture this as well;

Also few of the scholars say that The Gospel of Ramakrishna has been bowlderized, but they dont consider it highly problematic as the article says. -- vineeth (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

None of the scholars directly wanted to study the sexuality

Well, that's false, because Kripal's study was specifically on sexuality.

Moreover, I see quite a lot of papers related to growth of a religious organisation, and similar stuff; So Need to capture this as well;

Please give specifics. Which scholars are you talking about? You need to add citation to reliable sources to the article that support your changes. Quoting from these sources in the footnotes ise very helpful so that we can see what you are talking about. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are insufficient. "A.N.Q.2008"? What in the heck is that supposed to mean? — goethean ॐ 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Remove this, I think I added this by mistake... copy paste error!

"Please give specifics … You need to add citation to reliable sources …" — Nice Idea! will add the relevant stuff gradually in the article ... Regarding Kripal, he mentions (I think in the preface) that he did not set out looking for a homosexual saint, but as his research progressed, he became aware of the role of homosexuality... and his research tools were psychoanalysis, Hermeneutics... -- vineeth (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So you are denying that his analysis is about SRK's sexuality? That's untenable. — goethean ॐ 16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not denying that, what Kripal says is, he arrived at RK's sexuality during his study. As indicated by kripal, initially he was not interested in finding a homoerotic saint or rather was not bothered about RK's sexuality. However , As his study progressed, Kripal indicates that became aware of the homoerotic dimension of SRK. However if kripal agrees that his initial focus was to prove homoeroticism of SRK, then the long standing debate will get some answers... and some of the allegations against him will come true! But as of now, this allegation has remained a allegation! -- vineeth (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add the full bibliographical information of the books to which your references refer to the references section as soon as possible. — goethean ॐ 17:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

"as soon as possible" — I will definitely add it, what is the need to hurry :) -- vineeth (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Until you do, your additions are unsourced and can be removed. — goethean ॐ 17:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats right, very true! unlike quite a few articles I have come across, atleast this article will be scholarly and built on reliable sources! -- vineeth (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography changes

Nvineeth, could you discus before making changes like this? The books should be grouped either chronologically or else alphabetically by the author's last name. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, I thought this is a minor edit... , but you have a point, sorting alphabetically seems to be a good idea.. and this is what I have observed in most of the academic journals. -- vineeth (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I have made additions from Reliable and Scholarly Sources that indicate that Sil's Works are "unreliable", "sleight of hand", "heady mix of tendentious argument, speculation and innuendo". Ironically, there are several references to "Vivekananda's Ramakrishna", which is a chapter in his unreliable book![1]

I just went through Jstor article of this chapter, and found it extremely funny. I could straight away identify several faults, let alone scholars like radice, and Dr.Openshaw:

• As Sil indicates , My Master to be a "shot through with the author's very personalized interpretation of Ramakrishna's preachings and teaching and his claims on behalf of the Ramakrishna phenomenon." is false! The speeches were recorded by several sources and even published in news papers, ( see New Discoveries in West) even before it was published in Complete Works.

• There are several excerpts from Vivekananda's letters taken out of context, esp from Vol 5 CW.! Anybody who has read his letters knows that vivekananda used to handle the translation of several indian literatures, Bashyas, Bhagavad Gita, translation of some works from tamil to english ( in one specific instance, he tells out of desperation that he will learn tamil and translate if nobody does it!), and of course ramakrishna's biography. There are several , several letters in which he indicates his opinion of their translations and suggests several corrections. Everybody regarded him as their highest authority and they rightly did so, as Professor John Wright wrote to the chairman of the Committee of Parliament of Religions :"Here is a man who is more learned than all our learned professors put together." , "To ask you, Swami, for credentials is like asking the sun to state its right to shine!". Whats the point in quoting every single mistake that was pointed by swami vivekananda and prove that everything was "Story of Mythmaking and Propaganda"!!

• Related to the letter in which he says , "Avoid all irregular indecent expressions about sex..." is perfectly fine. How?? The Biography by Ramchandra Dutta was already published in 1890 in bengali and swami writes the letter in 1894, four years later, and its important to note this line in bold:"Avoid all irregular indecent expressions about sex etc. . ., because other nations think it the height of indecency to mention such things, and his life in English is going to be read by the whole world." Ramchandra Dutta was planning to translate his 1890 bio into english and sent his works for swami for review and swami viv., is perfectly fine in pointing out the corrections taking into mind the western decorum. (see "they lived with god") Let me quote from the essay Transformation of Ramakrishna by neevel - "Although Muller claims still to see "the irrepressible miraculising tendencies of devoted disciples", we can assume that Vivekananda, under the admonitions from the leading Indologist of the day, made every effort to make his account as factual and accurate as possible." ( I will add this stuff to main article later ). However this is also the stuff related to translation of ramana on which Sil bases his work ( see the radice's review article and the bengali version...).

• In the second letter - "..As to the wonderful stories published about Shri Ramakrishna", swamiji is indicating not to mention the stories related to miracles in the biography, and this is perfectly in sync with what max muller said him to avoid , "the miraculising tendency". But the question is whats the point of mentioning this letter in "sources of biography" section? What I see is these letters appear in the same order in Sil's Chapter of Vivekananda, there is no harm in taking stuff from reliable sources, but in this case this is not so.

• Can anybody explain the importance of this line - "Malcolm McLean of Otago University translated the entire Kathamrta as his 1983 dissertation, entitled A Translation of Sri-Sri-Ramakrsna-Kathamrta with Explanatory Notes and Critical Introduction. Only a few copies of this work exist." and this one - "Vivekananda loved the 1894 edition. "I cannot tell in words the joy I have experienced by reading the book," he wrote. However, he also offered editorial suggestions for future editions of Sen's poem." and this one - vivekananda registered his dislike of it in a letter to Swami Trigunatitananda and his subsequent exuberant praise of it in letters to Gupta". What value add does these lines do to the section??

• This particular line caught my attention - "Naransingha Sil speculates that Gupta did not dare to publish the Kathamrta while Vivekananda was still alive." , I can only laugh at this! In a letter Swamiji, after reading Gupta's work praises it [2]. To mention only vivekananda's corrections and not his praises of the works is just POV. And in Kali's Child Revisited, (published in Evam magazine, along with Kripal's response) Swami Tyagananda mentions the research work of Sunil Bihari Ghosh who has idicated that Gupta's works were already published in several magazines before the actual book was out and swami viv., was alive and breathing. For a moment lets assume that M., was scared of swamiji, then why is it so that he wasnt scared of other powerful monsatic disciples and didn't wait for their death?

• As Sil indicates, Ramchandra Dutta's biography is not "scandalous" , nine editions of this book have been published till date (I have several scholarly, reliable references to back this) , and Kripal who based this fact on Sil's allegation accepts - "I overplayed .... " ( see the reference in the article ). Even Kripal is not sure about law suite, kripal mentions - "... a likely reference to Datta's text".( see the kali's child website) ( And there are several scholarly references to indicate Kripal's reliance on unreliable stuff. Pravrajika Vrajaprana's review has a very good example for this!! I have noted several such examples at journals at jstor and other sites! ).

Another point I want to mentions is related to this line - "In a review of Kali's Child, religious scholar Brian Hatcher noted that a passage in the Kathamrta in which Ramakrishna describes how he "...could not resist worshipping the penises of boys with flowers and sandalwood paste" was paraphrased by Nikhilananda as: "I practiced a number of mystic postures", this line perfectly makes sense when you are describing both points of views. This is a well know ritual in bengal and somnath bhattachary clearly explains it in his article. The texts Leelaprasanga, Kathamritha do not hide it. They mention this practice and at the same time provide the context. Quoting out of context just because it occurs in a journal is not correct. Let see what wikipedia says on profanity:Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. Can somebody explain me how the presence of this line is useful to the article now? However I see this as a candidate to be discussed in the section Views on Ramakrishna's Religious Experiences and Practices, and there are several reliable, scholarly references to balance this view.

There are several other mistakes that I have observed, I will change them directly,

Before I close, let me quote from max muller's book on ramakrishna:

We want to know the man who has exercised and is exercising so wide an influence, such as he was, not such as we wish him to have been. He himself never wished to appear different from what he was, and he often seems to have made himself out worse than he was. Besides, if I had done so, I know that there are men who would not have been ashamed of suspecting me of a wish to represent the religions of the East, both modern and ancient, as better than they really are. These are the very men who would find many a lesson to learn from Râmakrishna's sayings. No, I said, let the wheat and the tares remain together. Few thoughtful readers will go through them without finding some thought that makes them ponder, some truth that will startle them as coming from so unexpected a quarter. Nothing, on the other hand, would be easier than to pick out a saying here and there, and thus to show that they are all insipid and foolish. This is a very old trick, described in India as the trick of the rice-merchants who wish to sell or to buy a rice-field, and who offer you a handful of good or bad grains to show that the field is either valuable or worthless.

Until and Unless these issues are resolved, the Netural Point of View tag will remain. -- vineeth (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only laugh at this!

Giggle all you want. This article will not be made into an appendage of the Ramakrishna Mission. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I mention anywhere above that the article will be made into an "appendage of the Ramakrishna Mission"? If this is your predetermined aim, then I cannot help it! Let me tell you one thing, I have absolutely no problem in mentioning Sudhir Kakar, Sil, Kripal, Hatcher, alan roland, ..... and other scholars in the article, absolutely no problem, as long as the other POV is taken into consideration. If there isn't any other POV, then let it be so, even if it sounds bad to the so called devotees, I don't care! Instead of using the journals, resources fairly, If an editor is predetermined and biased against somebody, then I cannot help it! BTW, the Kali's Child article is also full of POV, let me update it with little bit of research I have done so far. -- vineeth (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral, third party bios of Ramakrishna give little to no credibility, or such (undue) weight to Sil's and Kripal's shoddy scholarship. Even so, there are still at least as many references in the article from these conservative scholars than from Ramakrishna Mission sources. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, when you say "conservative scholars", who you refer to...Kripal and Sil? Or Tyagananda et al? — goethean ॐ 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, stooping to the use of such name-calling was a mistake on my part, so I've struck that comment. ~ priyanath ^talk 17:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New additions

What a mess. The new additions by Nvineeth are disasterous. It is comical that he thinks that you can naively refer to Romain Rolland's claims about Muller's book as absolute truth. You don't even specify who made the claim! Just "it is based on first-hand evidence", with a footnote to Rolland.

Listen. You will not get away with removing information sourced to contemporary scholars, and replace it with century-old, poorly sourced information. If you are unclear on Wikipedia policy, I beg you to consult with any number of Wikipedia administrators and ask them if what you are doing is okay. It is not. — goethean ॐ 16:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Biographical Sources section, I think it's possible to include elements fron Nvineeth's version, and also the previous version. The previous version was quite POV/Undue Weight because it gave the impression that the Kripal/Sil/bowdlerization 'controversy' is the driving force behind all Ramakrishna biography discussions, when it's a relatively minor (but legitimate) subtext. If you're talking about the renamed "Views on Ramakrishna’s Religious Experiences and Practices" section, Nvineeth added quite alot of well-referenced and new material on modern Ramakrishna scholarship, and the new title is a much more accurate description. And let's tone down the invective and handwringing. Nvineeth's good faith and well-referenced additions are improving the Ramakrishna related articles, and bringing a balance to them. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"…replace it with century-old, poorly sourced information"

Who do you call poorly informed? Max Muller who had the testimonies of first hand witnesses who were both for and against ramakrishna and then wrote the book? Rolland who ensured that he was absolutely sure about the reliability and then wrote the biography? or Sil whose book is termed as unreliable by several scholars?? or Kripal, whose book still revolves in controversy and criticism?

Just a few discussion threads above you have questioned the reliability of multi-scholarly work Invading the Sacred and mentioned in archive 2 - "if you don't have reliable sources to back up your editorial opinion, you are wasting everyone's time" , which probably indicates that you are very keen on building the article on reliable sources and we all appreciate this attitude. But again, when it comes to including works by Sil, Kripal, whose reliability is clearly in doubt you are advising us to reject the "century-old" books and embrace these works whose reliability is in doubt... strange! why this double standard? or is that we should not expect any good faith edits from you, because as you indicated above - This article will not be made into an appendage of the Ramakrishna Mission. ( and neither do I want this to happen anyway, but let there be honest representation ); and further you have made several personal attacks on editors and the mission, "bunch of liars" , "nobility of character, dedication to truth and honesty, and other fine character traits". ( to mention a few )

Going by your opinion of rejecting "century-old" books, the bible should be rejected as well and the life of jesus , should be built on modern psychoanalysis!! isn't it? similarly with buddha, St.Peter, St.Theresa, Rama, ..... since all the books are very very old, let us just ignore these old books! ( pls dont indulge in personal attacks on me again, saying that this is my religious POV, this is a perfectly valid point. )

Kathamrita which is also century-old should be rejected and the works of contemporary scholars should be included! but we are forgetting something! the works of these contemporary scholars was built on kathamrita, transformation of ramakrishna, complete works etc., .... so should we refer to the original reliable sources free from distorted interpretations or those works whose reliability is in doubt.?

In fact before my edits, every single book on RK, was termed as highly-problematic? Does any editor honestly think this was correct? In am not asking to censor the POV of Sil, Kripal etc., in fact I did mention them at the relevant place, I did take care to include the letter of "bosh or rot" at the correct place! I did take care to move the relevant discussion on bowdlerization to the corresponding article...and in the reference to amiya p. sen, the date was not correct! If I wanted to censor I would have involved in endless discussion ... there are plenty of these in the archives :)

I agree with one point, the reference related to "While constructing Ramakrishna's life three classes of evidence are available" is not reliable, I mistook it to be a part of kathamrita! But still, the current categorization is perfectly valid, I don't see any disputes with the categorization. the simplest categorization could be - works by 1."devotees" , 2."scholars"; and just this reference is not strong enough to claim "POV-section". in fact this tag would have been more suitable in the previous version, where all the works were regarded "highly problematic".

"consult with any number of Wikipedia administrators "

Yes pls call the admins and other editors, I can definitely explain everything I have touched upon above in detail, I can write an essay describing the POV, undue weightage that existed before my entry into this article. What I wrote before claiming the POV, was a very small insight taken from my research, If required I will go back to the version of the article before my entry, write a dissertation mentioning POV, undue weightage, and other factual mistakes (which exists even now!)

"refer to Romain Rolland's claims about Muller's book as absolute truth."

Can you pls indicate where I have mentioned that Muller's book is absolute truth? and what is the purpose of adding "citation needed" next to the citations in the section related max muller, rolland, pls explain. Yes call the admins and other editors, let they look into this disruptive editing. -- vineeth (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the unreliable ref I had added, and incorrect fact templates. I am also removing POV tag from the section, and dont add it back saying that it is vandalism, this will not work this time. If you want to add it, pls explain the relevant points in detail and then add the tag. -- vineeth (talk) 09:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the necessity of adding "according to x"? I think this precisely why references are used in wikipedia. -- vineeth (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

"Biographical Sources" section

After more research, I have to ask why does this article lead with a section that revolves around a dispute about sources between a few scholars? Other WP biographies begin with things like 'birth', 'early life', 'life and work', in other words: "biography". The dispute around sources revolves entirely around Kripal's book and its aftermath, which is just not notable enough to take over the lead role in a biography about Ramakrishna. Look up sources in Google Scholar and Google books for "Sri Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsadever Jivan-vrittanta" and "Sri Sri Ramakrishna Lilaprasanga", and you'll also see that this entire section (including the previous version) is also original research. At best, this section should be significantly reduced and moved to the end of the article, or be part of the footnotes (or perhaps most encyclopedically - discussed in the references section at the end)—that's how other encyclopedia articles handle the sourcing. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is primarily about the life and works of Ramakrishna, not a discussion on the sources of his biography. As I look at it, the article can be divided into two parts. Firstly, the actual biography of Ramakrishna, his views, teachings, etc., We should present an impartial biography of Ramakrishna, and provide basic information that most of his biographers agree upon. And secondly we can have information about research on Ramakrishna. As such, the biography part should come first, and then the interpretations about the personality and life of Ramakrishna. If there is any discussion about the sources of his biography, about any biographical book, it has it's place in the wikipedia article about the book. But given the nature of the biographical sources of Ramakrishna, a brief mention of different views on the biographical sources can be mentioned here towards the end of the article (preferably under a section 'Notes on biographical sources') and we can have a link to that section at the start of the biography. —SriniG (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This section is becoming more of a collection of books on Ramakrishna. And there are still several very notable books by scholars on RK's biography... which can find a place in the section! Any new comer, who wants to know about Ramakrishna, will be interested primarily to read about the biography and teachings, and not an analysis on sources of biography. I did a small case study of other articles:

• In Jesus there are several sources — We have the bible, hagiographic books by missionaries, by scholars, and then there are books which doubt the existence of christ and the reliability of new testament ( ex:george wells ), and books which focus on eroticism of jesus (ex: tanya ). But the jesus article is built on primary, notable sources - New Testament, the bible.
• In Gautama Buddha, the description of sources is a small para in the beginning.
• In Krishna, they mention the sources in a small para - about Mahabharata, Bhagavata.,

Its better to move this section down, with a small into in the beginning Or should this section be merged with bibliography (for ex: Rolland's biblio contains a brief discussion on each book, Isherwood's biblio very neatly categorizes the sources etc., ) ? -- vineeth (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Per consensus, I've moved the section down to the bottom of the article, where sources are typically discussed at length. It might still be helpful to have a brief paragraph about the sources at the beginning of the biography, but I don't see that this is the norm for modern biographies. It seems more typical of the type mentioned by Nvineeth—Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna—where the original source material (first edition of the New Testament, or a book on Buddha by a disciple, etc.) is not available. With modern biographies (examples: Ramana Maharshi, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Swami Vivekananda, Romain Rolland, Sigmund Freud) the source material is discussed merely listed at the end. ~ priyanath ^talk 22:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. And as SriniG points out, any lengthy discussion of specific books can be at that book's article, though a brief discussion here (at the bottom, in a sources section) might be good. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

totally disputed tags from Goethean

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents § Disruptive_edits_from_User:Goethean

Goethean, the totally disputed tag added by you , with edit summary ...This tag stays on until you start using Ramakrishna scholarship from the past 30 years is untenable. Just check the Notes section. Pls show a wikipedia guideline related to the edit summary... This will be removed. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to your unfounded attack. Hopefully, it will bring some responsible, knowledgeable editors to this page who will support using some recent scholarship. Frankly, your tactics are despicable and you should be ashamed of yourself. — goethean ॐ 16:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for the attacks. Pls go through my arguments here, which proves my addition of recent scholarship. Even though I am not removing the "totally disputed" tag this time, its easy to prove that your addition of this tag is untenable. I would like to hear from other knowledgeable editors as well. Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Contemporary Scholars", "spin off article"

Goethean, when you say here - "Per WP:NOR, every section of the article should be referenced to contemporary works of scholarship, not primary materials ("Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources")."

Wikipedia does not say anything about "contemporary scholarship", I am afraid its your own perception.

In the edit summary -

please stop removing tags. this article is not neutral, because you have removed all of the refs to major scholarship from the past 30 years and substituted refs approved by a religious organization

This is again untenable, other articles, ex : Jesus, Buddha, St.Peter can be attacked in the same way! And moreover "major scholarship from the past 30 years" are all present. "approved by a religious organization" is purely your POV, as I indicate later, these "older" books have been used in International journals.

Let me address this statement from you -

(30-year old articles by) Schneidermann and Neeval on the other, is original research, untenable, and wrong. Please stop imposing your POV on this article.

I don't know if you have read Kali's Child, this is what kripal says on Chapter 2, Page 86 -

Here I am building on the thesis of Walter G. Neevel, who in his seminal essay "The Transformation of Sri Ramakrishna"...

Let us not forget that you had added material from Neevel, not long back , this edit on 14:57, 3 May 2008. Pls dont change your statement now.

I would rather say that its your own POV. You are criticizing Schidermann, Neevel, because they don't match your POV., we all request you "Please stop imposing your POV on this article."

For the third time I repeat, there is no guideline in wikipedia that says that "century old books", "scholarship older than 30 years" should be rejected.

Now coming to this statement of yours -

You are referring to 50- to 100-year old works which are no longer relevant to discussion of Ramakrishna scholarship. Secondary sources should be cited when referring to these works. Directly using these works as sources is original research.

I am afraid this is your original research. Rolland, Isherwood, Max Muller are reliable secondary sources. Pls stop criticizing a Noble Prize winner like Romain Rolland, because he is not inline with your POV., all these three are highly reputed scholars. Thousands of international and academic journals use these books, for example : "Culture’s influence on creativity: the case of Indian spirituality" of International Journal of Intercultural Relations , uses all the above three books.

Views of Ramakrishna

Now coming to Views of Ramakrishna part, as SriniG indicated above the biography section should "provide basic information that most of his biographers agree upon. And secondly we can have information about research on Ramakrishna." Let me give an example, recently I added Ramakrishna#Ramakrishna.27s_Tantra_Sadhana, pls read the last para carefully, "In Kali's Child, Jeffery Kripal argues that "Ramakrishna's world, then, was a Tantric world"[182]. Kripal further argues that Ramakrishna's Tantric practices were "omnipresent, defining virtually every point along Ramakrishna's spiritual development."[183] However, other scholars — Swami Tyagananda[184], Somnath Bhatacharyya[121], Hugh B. Urban[147], Narasingha Sil[185], William Radice[161] argue that Kripal's conclusions are incorrect." According to you, Lets say we added that "Ramakrishna's world, then, was a Tantric world" to the biography secion of the article, then the Biography will be fully of such statements. The Biography will read like scholar x says ding, where as scholar y says dong :) Anothe example is to take of Sil., Sil says that "Mahendranath Gupta did not dare to publish the kathamrita when Swami Vivekananda was alive", but there are other reilable sources which say that the first version of kathamrita was published in 1897 ( when swami vivekananda was alive ) and there is another reliable source which says "kathamrita" was published in different journals before 1902. So the article will be full of such "If", and "Else", "But". All the different view points should be a part of "Views of Ramakrishna" section.

What I said above equally applies to other articles:

• Rama, some scholars argue that he did not exist, and there are books that argue that a particular even happend in a different way.
• Jesus, scholars like george wells argue that New testament is not reliable, and scholar like tanya associates eroticism with several teachings of christ, but why doesnt the main article mention these? why doesnt the major encyclopedias mention this?? Because these are just different "views".

Regarding your argument on Kripal, just have a look at these,

• Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions By Wendy Doniger (1999) , Here its strange that even Wendy Doniger does not make any mention of Kripal!
• Holy People of the World: A Cross-cultural Encyclopedia By Phyllis G. Jestice (2004),

Thanks, -- vineeth (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S : I would like to give a brief intro on the importance of the book, Life of Ramakrishna by Romain Rolland. Freud adopted the the concept of "Oceanic feeling" in the book Civilization and its Discontents from this book (you can find the reference to this in the article). The book Civilization and its Discontents forms the basis of psychoanalysis, which were used years later by Somnath Bhatacharrya, Kripal, Raab, etc., The correspondance b/w Freud, Rolland is a very interesting research subject in itself. Christopher Isherwood's book is used as a reference in several international journals , academic studies, for example : Academic American Encyclopedia by Grolier Incorporated (1996). SO there is no question of removing these references. -- vineeth (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to give a brief intro on the importance of the book, Life of Ramakrishna by Romain Rolland.

You need to clean up your vandalism before adding irrelevancies to the article. You have removed all references to contemporary scholarship from the article and replaced it with references approved by a religious organization. That is vandalism. I will be reverting your edits. — goethean ॐ 15:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, since you continue to resort to personal attacks and name-calling ("clean up your vandalism before adding irrelevancies") let me remind you about WP:AGF:

• Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
• If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but it is never necessary or productive to accuse others of harmful motives. —from WP:AGF

~ priyanath ^talk 05:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "contemporary scholarship" in Wikipedia, User:Nvineeth has demonstrated here that he has added very recent academic research including your favourite ones , Sil and Kripal. He has also demonstrated the importance of other books., by Rolland, Muller, Isherwood. If you remove these, it will be considered as vandalism and other editors, admins will definitely revert this. Apart from allegations, you are not giving any solid reason. -- Ramashray (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any administrator or experienced editor can tell you that books written in the last 30 years and published by Unicversity publishers are preferred to other sources. Despite your claims, Nvineeth REMOVED all references to Sil and Kripal from the biography section, and replaced them with poorer sourcing. This is against Wikipedia policy and should be reverted. — goethean ॐ 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotes and spin off article

Some suggestions:

1. Summarize what the sources say, rather than quoting. This will avoid the sin of cherry-picking quotes and force editors to present more information about the viewpoints presented
2. Move all quotes to the notes/reference section
3. Consider keeping this article to be just the biography, and move all other material to a spinoff article suchs as Views on Ramakrishna, and summarize its contents here, per WP:SUMMARY.

Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jossi, very good advice. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider the "Views on Ramakrishna" to be an illegitimate section anyways. Any content in this article falls under the header "Views on Ramakrishna". That section effectively ghettoizes critical contemporary scholars whose findings the devotees and Mission dislike, and to canonize the naive devotee and Mission views in the "Biographical" section, which is actually original research, depending as it does on unmediated primary sources. The "Biography" should present the views of critical contemporary scholars on Ramakrishna. Then there will be no need for a separate section of "Oh, by the way --- this is what those crazy secular Western scholars think...if you're REALLY interested in that stuff" — goethean ॐ 17:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You have a point there, Goethean. Best is always to have all significant viewpoints in one article if at all possible. One possibility is to make a demarcation between biographical information, and viewpoints that are related to Ramakrisna's work. Spin-off articles are only needed when there is too much material to deal with. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus among mainstream western scholars for the views of Kripal and Sil. In fact, several notable western scholars poke serious holes in their work. It therefore is not 'biography' but analysis and conjecture. Even their translations of the primary Bengali works on Ramakrishna have been quite credibly disputed. To place their opinions under biography would be quite incorrect. On the other hand, the biographical material of people like Isherwood, Rolland, and the other academics who are referenced in the bio section have withstood the test of time—and by a strong consensus. There is room in the article for the controversial views of Kripal and Sil, but they are properly placed in a 'views' section, since they are just that.

P.S. I'll mention again that the Britannica article on Ramkrishna, updated in 2008, has not even a mention of the recent work on Ramkrishna. I'm aware that other encyclopedias are not generally used as a source, but they can provide a neutral third-party reality check, and confirm my view above—Kripal and Sil's work are not accepted by the mainstream. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It therefore is not 'biography' but analysis and conjecture. To place their opinions under biography would be quite incorrect.

This is where you clearly veer into absolutely untenable and inappropriate original research. Excuse me, but who are you to make this claim on behalf of all Wikipedia readers and editors? How do you figure that you are a more appropriate authority than Narasingha Sil, (Oregon State University history professor and author of four books on Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and Saradi) and Jeffrey Kripal (Rice University Religion Chair) You cite in the article that there have been critical reviews of their books. This is normal with every book published by academia. An exception are the books and web articles that you tend to favor, like the stuff funded by non-academic entrepreneurial publisher Rajiv Malhotra, which are so non-notable that there are no academic reviews of them at all, and which have a very clear ideological and religious agenda. As for your point about Britannica, there are other encyclopedias, Like Gale's Encyclopedia of Reilgion, which discuss Kripal's and Sil's books. But I'm guessing that you are well aware of that. — goethean ॐ 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the biographical material of people like Isherwood, Rolland, and the other academics who are referenced in the bio section have withstood the test of time—and by a strong consensus.

You are referring to 50- to 100-year old works which are no longer relevant to discussion of Ramakrishna scholarship. Secondary sources should be cited when referring to these works. Directly using these works as sources is original research. — goethean ॐ 19:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is room in the article for the controversial views of Kripal and Sil, but they are properly placed in a 'views' section, since they are just that.

Everything in this article is equally a "View on Ramakrishna". The distinction between "controversial" views of Western scholars that you and the Ramakrishna Mission don't like on the one hand, and the views of scholars that you (and the Mission) do like, like (30-year old articles by) Schneidermann and Neeval on the other, is original research, untenable, and wrong. Please stop imposing your POV on this article. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus among mainstream western scholars for the views of Kripal and Sil.

There is never consensus in academia about anything. If you would like to argue that Kripal and Sil do not qualify as reliable sources, I will refer you to WP:RS. Otherwise, the distinctions that you are making are irrelevant for this article. — goethean ॐ 19:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

priyanath, Goethean makes here very good points that are consistent with Wikipedia policies of NPOV, and NOR. You ought to read them carefully, and if you still disagree, I would recommend an RFC on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Editors, pls find my arguments below, sorry for the new section. -- vineeth (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, thanks for the tips, yes its important to move the quotes to refs. But, I dont see the need for RFC. -- Ramashray (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, there is no dispute over whether Sil and Kripal qualify as reliable sources. The dispute centers on the fact that several mainstream and (arguably more) respected Asian Studies scholars dispute the entire foundation of the work by Sil and Kripal. NPOV and NOR would require that ALL the WP:RS disputants have their say, not just Sil and Kripal. That is just what the "Views" section does so well. To have the academic controversy take center stage in the biography section is what I am arguing against. Sil and Kripal and their 'new' biographical details on Ramakrishna do not hold any water according to some esteemed scholars. Until there is a consensus in academia on their views, then they are just "Views" and not "biography" (some of the Sil and Kripal work are entirely their 'views' about Ramakrishna, such as their psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna - these have nothing to do with biography). An RFC might help to decide which parts of their scholarship are widely accepted. I also believe an RFC should center on Goethean's conduct, because that truly has been an issue that has affected the editing environment on all the Ramakrishna related articles. I'm going to let other editors have their say here before I respond again, particularly Nvineeth, who has added so much relevant and reliably sourced material to this article. ~ priyanath ^talk 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I also believe an RFC should center on Goethean's conduct, because that truly has been an issue that has affected the editing environment on all the Ramakrishna related articles.

I welcome RFCs on any topic related to the Ramakrishna article, including my conduct here or elsewhere. More eyeballs looking at what is going on here will ensure that the POV editing comes to a quicker end. How you think that you can get away with removing coverage of the controversy over Ramakrishna's biography from the section on Ramakrishna's biography is a mystery that only you can elucidate. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Until there is a consensus in academia on their views, then they are just "Views" and not "biography"

That is simply not how academia or Wikipedia works. There is never complete consensus on any issue. A biography of a person includes a description of any controversy over that biography. You cannot dismiss the views of the two people who have written the most notable books on Ramakrishna over the past three decades. Especially considering that Sil and Kripal are published by university presses, and your critique is published by Rajiv Malhotra's foundation and has recieved zero academic reception, and next to zero popular reception.

some of the Sil and Kripal work are entirely their 'views' about Ramakrishna, such as their psychoanalysis of Ramakrishna - these have nothing to do with biography). '

That's a great topic for you to write about --- on your own website. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) It's not "my" critique, or Malhotra's. The utter discrediting of Sil and Kripal's views comes from the most reliable sources in Asian Studies - Smith, Radice, Larson, and others. While arguably notable, their (sil and kripal's) books have been unarguably discredited by WP:RSs. The fact that they are still included in the article is ample testimony to Vineeth's adhering to NPOV. ~ priyanath ^talk 04:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable souce for your claim that Smith, Radice, and Larson are more reliable than Haberman 1997, Hatcher 1999, Hawley 1998, Mclean 1997, and Urban 1998? Also Radice (1995) says about Sil:

In the end, therefore, his book has to be rejected in favour of more cautious, less mocking psychological assessments; by Sudhir Kakar (in The Analyst and the Mystic. pschoanalytic reflections on religion and mysticism Delhi: Viking, 1991, as well as in Clement's book), or Jeffrey J. Kripal.

(emphasis mine). So "utter discrediting" might not be the most accurate description. — goethean ॐ 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I can email you any of these documents. — goethean ॐ 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello? — goethean ॐ 15:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I read the Kali's Child article, and Radice's comments appear in the shortcomings section, (against kripal). -- 59.92.187.96 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have access to this document, and like the anon user said above, William Radice's main contributions are in shortcomings., in fact Radice ends the review saying "The erotic-Tantric lens is not the only one through which the Kathamrta can be read." -- vineeth (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm aware of the other opinions on Kripal - obviously there is no consensus to support his opinions (that's all they are), and strong evidence that his scholarship was faulty, to a fault. And yes, his pretense at being a psychoanalyst was discredited by people who are Reliable Sources in that field, which Kripal is not. Same for his sophomoric attempts at translating Bengali to suit his opinions. ~ priyanath ^talk 16:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the quotation from Radice shows that your "utter discredited" statement is false, unless you think that Radice was recommending a book he considered to be "utterly discredited."

Second, there does not have to be "consensus to suppport his opinion" in order for it to be included in the article --- that's, as you like to say, a red herring, as is your remark that Kripal's writings are "his opinions (that's all they are)." Kali's Child was published by a University Press, widely discussed, and highly notable. So it should be in the article as soon as the editors of this article collectively decide to begin abiding by Wikipedia policy. This article should be a microcosm of the general, (but mostly of the academic) world-wide discussion and debate on Ramakrishna. I think that if you peruse other Wikipedia pages, you will find that this is a fair description of what they try to accomplish. It is indefensible (indeed, outrageous) to claim that Sil and Kripal's writings are not notable features of that debate.

Looking at the article, I see that every single mention of Sil and Kripal seems to have been removed from the biography section. If that is indeed true, I think that the article has inarguably been worsened by Vineeth's edits. I will revert the article to before Vineeth came and began his edits. — goethean ॐ 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your mass removal of material added during the last month. This needs to be discussed, section by section. ~ priyanath ^talk 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have decided to edit war in an attempt to impose your views on this article. I have been discussing the problems with you, but you refuse to see reason. You want to write the biography as if Kripal and Sil never existed. You cannot do that. They have written the most notable books on Ramakrishna in the past 30 years. The biography in the version to which you reverted does not mention them. That is unacceptable by any standard. The Wikipedia organization is not a branch of the Ramakrishna Mission. It is not composed of Ramakrisha devotees. It is not a reilgious organization. We use scholarship here. If you have a reliable source that criticizes a particular point that Sil or Kripal make, add that to the article. But you cannot write an article and ignore the scholarly sources. Revert yourself immediately. — goethean ॐ 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Priyanath, such massive deletions of material must be discussed first. Also, there is no reason for constant attacks on Vineeth. Both Priyanath and Vineeth's edits should be serioulsy considered - and not deleted in mass by one editor. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I would really love to see these outrageous tactics attempted on a more high-profile article. Delete all mention of the past 30 years of scholarship in favor of sources which are more amenable to a religious organization. You wuoldn't get away with it for an hour. — goethean ॐ 19:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree 100% percent. Priyanath is a well established editor and does not use, as you say, "outrageous tactics." He, and other editors, have already stated that changes should be discussed section by section. There is a process for this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject - Countering Systemic Bias

Going through all these arguments reminds me of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias, to quote -

Wikipedians tend to self-select more heavily among strong adherents to or opponents of certain political ideologies or religious beliefs. Editors with strong opinions tend to edit vigorously and often; editors without an intellectual agenda tend to edit less since they do not desire to represent a particular point of view. This may lead to subjective articles and heavy-handed promotion or criticism of topics.

"Articles which contain a "Religious views" section frequently include Christianity, Islam and Judaism while neglecting the views of other religions. Ideally, an article describing religious views on a topic should incorporate Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist views,"

I can see a live example of this here. User:Nvineeth points these well through the example of Jesus. (well I am not against jesus though, pls dont mistake me). Atleast User:NVineeth has added Sil, Kripal, and other things related to translation debate which are definitely not pleasing to the "mission". -- Ramashray (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not even paying attention. Nvineeth didn't add any references to Sil or Kripal. — goethean ॐ 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Nvineeth didn't add any references to Sil or Kripal."

Few things to ponder:

• Sil has been added here, pls read the line carefully. It not only adds Sil, but also the other POVs as well.
• Refs to Sil and Kripal
• Unclaimed stuff removed., and Sil was moved to corresponding article. Do you know why it was moved to corresponding section?? Along with kama kanchana, pususha kanchana was added and Sil's views of Misogyny was no longer valid. And not all the scholars view this as misogyny, so this was more apppropriate in the corresponding section.
• Academic Review of Sil's Works by Radice, Openshaw

Regards, -- vineeth (talk) 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment vineeth's comments merit attention. There is a history of POV pushing on related articles as to the relevance of scholarship from past and recent studies - per recent edits. These edits are worthy of review and possible corrections. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Observations on Systematic bias

To quote from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ

Systematic bias is not in itself an NPOV issue, however it can lead to NPOV issues in certain instances. Consider the following examples: 1. The statement "academia in Africa is inferior to academia in Western Europe" violates NPOV, but is not really a systemic bias issue. It's an issue of one person presenting his or her opinion as fact, and such cases may come from the minority group as well. ... 3.An article on the effects of globalisation that notes the views of European academics, but does not note the views of African academics, when their views differ substantially from those of their European counterparts, suffers from a POV problem that is rooted in systemic bias.

Systematic bias I can find here:

• "Recent scholarship of last 30 years" should be given more weightage., desipte the absence of wikipedia guideline.
• Neevel, Max Muller, Romain Rollan, Isherwood, to name a few are unreliable and are not reliable.
• More weightage towards Sil and Kripal., but not to other recent scholarship by radice, raab, hawley, openshaw, etc.,

Coming to the (mis)quotes of Swami Vivekananda's letters by Sil, there are several Reliable Sources., ( for ex: by Marie Louise Burke ) who write that the same letters were very important and inspiring: Ex: "He constantly tried to inspire his close disciples in India to do something big. His letters to them contain some of his strongest words." - Majumdar. another ex: "His letters from the West in these days laid down the motive of his campaign" - Jacob Kattackal. I can give example after example for this.

So saying that "Sil's views are highly notable, he being the most notable contemporary scholar" is systematic bias. So this can never be the main view and deserves a minority weightage in the corresponding section.

Another systematic bias is about Kripal., other scholars argue that book has critical mistakes, even Sil who according to few editors is "highly notable contemporary scholar" does not agree on Kripal's scholarship., so you cannot give undue weightage to Kripal, and again introduce systematic bias. Another systematic bias is that Sil's words are given more weighage when it comes to Ramakrishna, but not in the case of Kripal's scholarship. Sil and other scholars, psychoanalysts also argue that Kali's child is Kirpal's own biography, to quote Sil, "Kripal’s personal experiences (somewhat “dark” and presumably “pathological” or, to quote his own expression, “psychosexual”) at that monastery may have something to do with his understanding of Ramakrishna’s ecstasy via what some psychologists would call “projective introversion.” "[3] We dont want to add all these different "views" in biography and confuse the reader with all these things, do we?? And remember, we are working on Biography not a psychoanalytic study. Its important to note that Jesus article makes no reference to the psychological anaylsis at all and relies majorly on primary source ( this is fine because according to WP:RS, they do not interpret from primary source.) So we cannot have double standards and introduce systematic bias... Moreover Sil, Kripal are only a minority..

When you say "Books approved by religious organisations", this is what the faq says (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ):

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. One important task for encyclopedias is to explain things. In the case of human beliefs and practices, explanation encompasses not only what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices, but an account of how such beliefs and practices evolved. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical, and scientific sources.

The current article not only has very good journals, academic studies as well as other stuff related to "human beliefs". Sil, Kripal are only a minority, and we cannot give them more weightage than Raab, Neevel, Hawley, Dr.Openshaw, Bhatacharrya, Shnidermann, Isherwood, Max Muller, Romain Rolland, Alan Rolland, Radice, Bhawuk .... the list goes on.

Thanks -- vineeth (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the 'minority views' of Kripal and Sil are just that, and not academic consensus. Any minority views by somewhat notable academics, even when proved wrong by their peers, do warrant a place in the 'views' section, however. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting revision on 25 June 2008

Dear Editors, I think we have done enough of "beating around the bush", I will be going back in time, when the article was free from my edits and influence, and I will argue that the article had several POVs, mistakes in it. I will be taking this revision on 25 June 2008 as reference. This is by no means an attack on any editor, we all make mistakes., and I deeply value the words of Jesus on Karma - "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you."

Following is a point by point analysis:

Introduction

1. The reference for Bengal Renaissance has this quote from Sarkar - "Finding traces in the Kathamrita of a learned literate knowledge/unlearned oral wisdom binary, I had seen it as evidence of a liminal moment, ". Its important to note that Sarkar is not talking about bengali renaissance, but "liminal moment", I am guessing this is a typo, but still there is no mention of Bengali renaissance.
2. Though recent academic scholarship has concentrated on, among other things, aspects of his sexuality,[5] the Ramakrishna Mission and other scholars have criticized the work of these scholars.[6] This is a POV., instead of "criticized", this should have been "argued the presence of critical errors, and criticized". When Sil says that Kirpal's work is "plain shit" its criticism no doubt., but here the scholars argue the presence of errors. And why bring Ramakrishna Mission in between? Swami Tyagananda != Ramakrishna Mission. There are several independent scholars not related with Ramakrishna Mission. And the works were not directly on Sexuality, what the scholars say is that they did a psychological analysis and then found something about sexuality. Its also interesting to that there are other psychological analysis which do not concentrate on sexuality at all! This statement is not at all accurate. As far as Iknow, recent analysis on this topic was by Hawley in 2004., in which he says that Kripal's observations are not justified. Also there are other equally academic research on ramakrishna mission, RK's personality, why give undue weightage to sexuality.?

instead of "criticized", this should have been "argued the presence of critical errors, and criticized".

True. So the correct response would have been to insert the term "denounced" or some synonym instead of "criticized". Instead, you removed the entire statement, including the citations to multiple reliable sources, and replaced the sentence with one completely opposite in meaning, with a reference to a source from....1969. Then you added a few completely irrelevant journal articles. My original sentence has been reduced to "psychoanalysis and mysticism.", the rest being verbiage straight out of Ramakrishna Mission promotional materials. The job that you have done on the final sentence of the intro is really a perfect model of the unconscionable POV editing which characterizes what you have done to this article. If I were you, I would be ashamed of it. — goethean ॐ 20:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No neutral third party biography of Ramakrishna gives such undue weight to the speculation about his sexuality. The current version is now NPOV. Relity check: read the Britannica bio on Ramakrishna. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement above violates WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS. when you say "If I were you, I would be ashamed of it", it makes me proud, for making the article better as per guidelines, and thanks again for personal attacks. -- vineeth (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Biographic Sources

1. Thus, everything that we know about Ramakrishna comes through the writings of his disciples. , not correct., as my later additions to the article showed, there are other independent biographies by non disciples and notable scholars, like Mazoomdar, Max Muller, etc.,

Really? Where did Muller get his information from? Did he know Ramskrishna personally? — goethean ॐ 16:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Additionally, only a few of the primary sources have been translated into English and scholars find those translations to be highly problematic and the reference provided is Sil, 1993; Hatcher, 1999; McLean, 1983; Radice, 1995; Kripal 1998. This is original research. Sil argues that translations have been "bowdlerized" and he argues that Swami Vivekananda's influence was prominent in shaping these works. Sil does not tell that these works were "highly problematic". Hatcher in his journal argues about bowdlerization, giving the example of "worship of dhan or "penis"". This POV is only half the story., what the article does not mention is that dhan as such does not have vulgar connotations in bengali, and even kripal in kali's child agrees that "a mother may jokingly say this to her child". Moreover, Somnath Bhattacharya argues this to be a well know tantra puja. For more info on this, see the section, Ramakrishna's tantra sadhana and read what Christopher Isherwood writes on the word yoni. McLean did a PhD on Kathamrita, and I dont know when and how he said that the "translations are highly problematic". Radice, states the arguments of Sil in the review of Sil's book and further he is indicating that the translation of Gospel is bowlderized (related to ramana), how can this mean that all the translations are "highly problematic". Kirpal argues that gospel is bowdlerized and Nikhilananda has omitted few passages., and "Jivanavrattanta" is scandalous (basing this on Sil) and he later withdrew this allegation. I dont understand how Kripal's views can be applied to the entire section of translations. The word "highly problematic" is POV and of course "highly problematic" in terms of accuracy.

"Datta's Jivanavrttanta"

1. Its interesting to note the presence of this non encyclopedic content - "My ellipses are bracketed." This is wikipedia not a personal article.
2. Now in the section the first letter of "bosh and rot" adds some value to the section and a nice POV., but the second letter is about miracles. not about translations., SV is clearly informing to avoid mention of miracles., Just because this occurs in the same order in Sil's work is no reason to add it here. Its also important to note that Sen, projects the same letter used by Sil in a completely different light, diagonally opposite to Sil.
3. The letter calling "bosh and rot" sounds mysterious and secret when read, but when you read it along with what max muller writes on ramakrishna's language, the POV is complimented. At times Ramakrishna's speech was "abominally filthy...but natural to the hindu mind"[4], and its a very important to note the comments on translation by max muller., and its imp to note that SV is talking about the translation and he says "other nations think "., having only the letter does not convey the accurate picture.
4. The year is incorrect., when cross checked with the reference provided (Amiya. P. Sen). Sen is referring to the 1995 reprint of the Jivanavrttanta book., and moreover, the Jivanavrttanta was not published in 1885. And nowhere does Sen mention about anything "highly problematic".

Vivekananda's "My Master"

1. How is Marie Louise Burke's POV is important here?
2. Other reliable source indicate that speeches were published in independent newspapers, theosophical journal before it appeared in Complete Works., Having only Sil's statements is not completely true.

1897 edition of The Gospel of Ramakrishna

1. How can "Vivekananda registered his dislike" make the translation "highly problematic"? This is original research

Gupta's Kathamrta

1. How can "Vivekananda loved the 1894 edition. "I cannot tell in words the joy I have experienced by reading the book," he wrote. However, he also offered editorial suggestions for future editions of Sen's poem." make it "highly problematic"? This is again original research.

Gupta's Kathamrta

1. "he substantially altered Gupta's text, combining the five parallel narratives" is an allegation of Kripal, and others argue that kirpal's allegations are untenable., ( see kali's child article )

If someone has said something specific about Kripal's specific claim, then add it to the article along with Kripal's claim. Don't delete Kripal's claim. — goethean ॐ 16:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The very foundation of Kripal's book is his mistranslations of the Kathamrta, which Sil described as "replete with mistranslations, misunderstandings, and manipulation of the meaning of the Bengali words through a frivolous use of the dictionary and selecting only the suitable synonyms regardless of their cultural context and usage." Sil is not the only one who found fault with Kripal's butchering of the Bengali language. Kripal is not a WP:RS on Bengali translations, any more than he is on psychoanalysis, since he does not have a degree or expertise in either. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I have addressed the dhan or "the worship of penis" above while talking of Hatcher. This is perfectly suitable for Views or tantra sadhana section. Its also important to note WP:Profanity - "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate".

This article will not be censored to avoid sexual terms. If you think that you can succeed in removing such terms based on the WP:Profanity guideline, I urge you to investigate further. Wikipedia articles can be quite specific when it comes to the description of sexual phenomenon. — goethean ॐ 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I would like to know about this., because the same thing will apply to Wendy Doniger's article. -- vineeth (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "Malcolm McLean of Otago University translated the entire Kathamrta as his 1983 dissertation," how is this relevant here. There are several dissertations on kathamrita., Malcolm McLean is not the only scholar to do this. and what is his dissertation got to do with "highly problematic" translations?

The fact is that Maclean's is the only scholarly, accurate and complete translation of the kathamrta into English. Unfortanately, it is unavailable to 99.999% of readers. Instead, English readers are stuck with the Mission's inaccurate, bowdlerized, self-serving, and dishonest translation. I suppose that this information should be better sourced. I believe that Kripal covers it in Kali's Child. — goethean ॐ 16:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The "fact" is purely your POV, kirpal makes only 4 references to McLean. You need not be worry about "English readers are stuck with the Mission's inaccurate, bowdlerized ...", similarly the American scholars are struck with "distorted, mistranslated, misused" dissertation under a prof "obsessed with sex, lewd meanings" (according to BBC) -- vineeth (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You think that Kripal's dissertation is equal in importance to the kathamrta? That's crazy. — goethean ॐ 20:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you accuse Ramakrishna mission of bowdlerizing, as an christian who knows the Bible fairly well, I will give you an example, "Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled." This is from the bible. Now how will you translate this into other languages? Its not correct to accuse mission, its kripal who is anti christ and brings eroticism in christianity and St.Theresa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.187.96 (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Saradananda's Lilaprasanga

1. Quite a few uncitied claims. The line "Elsewhere, Sil speculates that "It is quite possible that Saradananda's Lilaprasanga was influenced by Vivekananda's ideas and suggestions."" is POV (the word speculates), somewhat funny because Saradananda started this work in 1909, 7 years after the death of SV. ( see Neevel, isherwood, romain rolland )

There's no contradiction between Vivekanada dying before the book was written and Sil's speculation that Vivekananda's ideas influenced the book. If Vivekananda knew Saradananda, his ideas and influences could have been transmitted before he died.

There is nothing POV about Wikipedia mentioning Sil's speculation. I found Sil speculation to be highly notable. You, on the other hand, tend to dismiss the influence of all of the scholarly work that has been done in this area in the past three decades in favor of older material which is more favorable to the Mission, so I imagine that you will find Sil's speculation to be less notable. — goethean ॐ 16:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

why is it "past three decades" sometimes and "last 40 years" sometimes? -- vineeth (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Majority of references in this section of "Biographic Sources" are from "Narasingha P. Sil, "Vivekananda's Ramakrishna: An Untold Story of Mythmaking and Propaganda". What the section does not say is that William Radice, Openshaw argue that "Sil misuses Vivekananda's words and kathamrita". [5]. And this section exactly does this, full of (mis)quotes from Swami Vivekananda's letters... Just having Sil's views on swami viv., is not neutral and highly problematic.

Sil's views are highly notable, he being the most notable contemporary scholar on Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and Sarada. If you have specific criticisms from another scholar refuting Sil's specific points about Vivekananda's words, add them to the appropriate section. The criticism of Sil can be noted in the following way: "Narsingha Sil, whose work has been criticized by Openshaw[x] and Radice[y], argues..." [x] and [y] should be footnotes to quotations from Openshaw and Radice regarding Sil's work. After it has been established in the article that Openshaw and Radice criticize Sil's work generally, it doen't need to be mentioned again and again unless there are specific criticisms of Sil's specific claims. — goethean ॐ 16:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Biography

Birth and childhood

1. " As he was growing up, he was barely literate. " is only half the truth, what is also true is that he was illiterate from the POV of formal education , but was considered a genius., Neevel puts across this POV very nicely., So does Bhawuk's international journal.

Heterodox religious practices

1. "Strangely, these teachers came to him" is a minor POV, nothing serious.

Totapuri and Vedanta

1. "Nikhilananda interjects that this is because as a ..." is original research and allegation on Nikhilananda (POV). All biographers acknowledge the nangta part.,

This can probably be sourced to Kripal. You will have to explain why you think it is POV. — goethean ॐ 00:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

1. " He attempted to teach her everything he had learned from his various gurus. She is believed to have mastered every religious secret as quickly as Ramakrishna had. ". - Citation needed. None of the major biographers tell that "He tried to teach her everything".

Yeah, I certainly didnt write that. — goethean ॐ 00:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not pointing fingers against any editor, I made this particularly clear in the intro of this section., we all make mistakes, and we dont own articles. -- vineeth (talk) 08:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yogeshwari and Tantra

1. Related to Kumari Puja, " which reportedly can include ritualized copulation ", "fainted" is only half the story of Sil., Kumari puja is done publicly at several places and "fainted" can be interpreted as "samadhi"...I think devadaru corrected this later. Another view of scholars on kumari puja is that its a part of durga puja and not a tantra act as Sil suggests., mentioning only Sil here is unbalanced. ( for ex: see the book Kali: The Black Goddess of Dakshineswar )
2. Datta said: "We have heard many tales of the brahmani but we hesitate to divulge them to the public." - no doubt, what he says is true about vamachara, but if we quote off the context it will definitely create suspense., the section "Ramakrishna's tantra sadhana" has material from Neevel, who puts across this point.
3. "Sarada, now a young woman, heard rumors of Ramakrishna's bizarre practices and came to Dakshineshwar to protect him from Yogeshwari. ", well, according to Neevel, and several of the biographers, Bhairavi took leave in 1864, three years before Sarada Devi's arrival. Having only Sil's POV here is incorrect.,

Teachings

Kamini-kanchan

1. This section is incomplete and does not talk of purusha kanchana.
2. Like Sil, Not all view this as misogyny.
3. The ideal title is kama kanchana and add both kamini kanchana and purusha kanchana should be presented

So why did you completely remove Sil's view from the section? — goethean ॐ 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Views of Ramakrishna

• Since the 1976 publication of Walter Neeval's essay "The Transformation of Ramakrishna",...engineered by Vivekananda, was from a quietistic mystic into a social reformer.. This para does not cite the references correctly., the Openshaw in the ref has nothing to do with "transformations". Moreover Neevel does not use these words at all. I am guessing that this was taken from Amiya P. Sen journal "Sri Ramakrishna, the Kathamrita and the Calcutta middle classes: an old problematic revisited ", but the reference does not mention this, and without this reference, this will qualify as original research on Neevel. Moreover the journal of Sen says that Neevel's observations are incorrect.

Legacy

1. "It could be argued that .... by converts like Christopher Isherwood ..." is a POV, why "converts" and not "scholar"? And this looks like a original research., we need citation for this.

Because is it relevant that Isherwood is a devotee. — goethean ॐ 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, according to Kripal (in his reply to Larson), the content of Isherwood's books on SRK was controlled, and portions suppressed, by the Mission. Maybe we should include that. — goethean ॐ 00:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like there's enough material for an article on Speculation about Ramakrishna and the sources about his life. Seriously. There should be a short discussion in this article, after the more relevant bio, teachings, legacy, etc. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary reception

1. Usage of Words should be taken care as per Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Bias_in_attribution:_Mind_your_nuances, Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid. For example "suggests that" should be replaced with "argues that".
2. The kali's child section mentions of controversy only "in india", but the controversy erupted among western audiences also., as per several journal publications. so this is not correct.

It's not really controversial when an academic book is criticized by other scholars in academic journals. That's business as usual in academia. When there are hundreds of outraged letters to the editor of a newspaper, calls for the book to be banned, etc, that's controversy. No Western scholars called for Kripal's resignation, or a public apology, or anything. — goethean ॐ 00:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "According to Brian Hatcher, although some had their misgivings...approving, and at times highly laudatory" is only half the story. Hatcher wrote the journal in 1999, before kali's child revisited, Somnath Bhattacharyya's papers, alan roland's works, Huston Smith's works were published., and there were several arguments on presence of flaws later in journal publications, so even this needs to be taken into account. Just mentioning Brain Hatcher at the end gives a incorrect impression.

Well, it depends on what later reviews you are referring to. Are you talking about scholars or swamis? — goethean ॐ 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Smith, Radice, Bhattacharyya, Sil, Roland, and others. All scholars. And all meeting WP:RS. Academic consensus does not support Kripal. ~ priyanath ^talk 02:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "Kripal responded to the criticisms in journal articles" , this should be "criticisms, arguments on presence of flaws". Why are arguments on errors considered as criticism?

An argument is a subset of criticism. — goethean ॐ 00:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Most of the later contemporary reception by Asian Studies and Psychoanalysis scholars was extremely negative toward Kripal's fundamental ideas, translations, scholarship, and POV. Using the canard of 'the most recent scholarship is the most reliable', then Kripal shouldn't even be mentioned here. ~ priyanath ^talk 01:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

---

The above list is by no means exhaustive., others can pls elaborated. -- vineeth (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)