Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 1

Initial text

Is it possible to automatically reverse link pages? For example, the page on Ramakrishna Paramhansa provides his deathyear which links to the page for that year (1886). But that page doesnt contain his name in the list of eminent people who died in that year! It would be nice if this was automatic. Perhaps this requires some intelligent pattern matching... but I am sure it can be done (at least for almost all cases). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sray (talk • contribs) 05:42, 1 April 2003 (UTC)

Shri Ramakrishna's love for Kali was famed. It is one of the great devotional stories about God in any religion. I'll work on it, but hopefully someone else can write stuff on this too (different POV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordSimonofShropshire (talk • contribs) 17:03, 31 March 2004 (UTC)

Sensuality

so sensuality is avidyamaya and love is vidyamaya . . . where does sex fall? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.36.130 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2004 (UTC)

That's so simplistic as to miss the point. Sex if it is governed within a dharmic life is fine. Hinduism hails samsara (in the context of a career and married life) as a vital and important aspect of humanity. If one loses control of it and sex/sensuality (kama) becomes the end unto itself, one is being steeped in illusory (maya) ignorance (avidya). As for love, it has many forms. It's not just one thing, as you should know. Vidyamaya is also not complete enlightenment. It is still illusion. Until one is undifferentiated enlightenment, there is always an essence of ignorance. Not that this is bad. The world is fine, but one should be aware of oneself, one's actions.

Shri Ramakrishna once explicated the difference between maya and daya (compassion). Maya is attachment ('love') for one's family and friends, one's own little social circle. Daya, compassion, is love for all people, beings, animals, in the world. Those who are enlightened, like the Buddha or Swami Vivekananda, knew love and were love. I recommend you find (on the internet or whatever) a book called "The Gospel of Shri Ramakrishna" (in Bengali Shri Ramakrishna Charitamrit). It explains his view of Hinduism perfectly.--LordSuryaofShropshire 23:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

>"so sensuality is avidyamaya and love is vidyamaya . . . where does sex fall?"

Ramakrishna implied that all things, good and bad, were maya (illusion). According to him, both love and hate, materialism and spirituality, egotism and generosity exist only due to our limited perception of Reality. However, he divided them in illusions that bind us further (avidyamaya) and illusions that take us further on the dispelling of maya itself (vidyamaya).

Sensuality here means that which is perceived by our five senses. As one cannot trust one's eyes before a trained magician, also our human five senses draw and drag us further to illusions and false conclusions, whereas the embracing and realization of some concepts that are not sensual (i.e., "of the senses"), such as love, generosity, spirituality, all of them "vidyamaya", take us further away from sticking to what we see, touch, smell, hear, taste.

In Ramakrishna's view, one does not have to close the eyes before the magician or to run from sex. But in both cases, man's senses do not account for the most important things happening there.

the link to the Japanese version of this does not seem to be linking...... whomever knows how to fix it should. -gren

NPOV Dispute...

Reading this entry in our wikipedia I am struck by the extreme single-sidedness of it as an introduction to Ramakrishna and his legacy. He is blatantly called "a man of God" and his impact on the world is judged to be "tremendous"... It makes me suspect that it is written by the Ramakrishna Mission...

The article continues in a devotional mode in which Ramakrishna is said to have experienced "nirvikalpa samadhi (absorption in the all-encompassing Consciousness)" which is it is then said "gave Ramakrishna an understanding of the two sides of maya (illusion)"... This may be true, but it is debatable and rational, reasonable persons could and do disagree with the implicit world-view expressed by the article as it stands.

We should strive for a NPOV stance in our articles. I know that there is a controversial discussion of Ramakrishna, his spirituality and his legacy going on and I want it to be represented in the article in the proper, agreed upon manner... But I do not want to be "flamed" and become involved in an "edit war" when/if I add information and links about it... Fair warning, no?Emyth 22:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Emyth,

I dont think the article is 'extremely' single sided. But there is lot of scope for improvement. The impact of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda on the renaissance that followed in Bengal has been tremendous - acknowledged by Subhas Bose, S. Radhakrishnan, Rajagopalachari etc. The mission runs around 600 educational institutions and has not been affected by any controversies. Vivekananda is treated as the face of modern day Hinduism by most of the sects of Hinduism.

The experience of Samadhi etc. themselves warrant separate articles and all mystics - most recently Ramana Maharshi - have tried to explain about what happens when one attains samadhi. They say that our language system as it exists is based on the perception of the world through our 5 sense organs and is incapable of fully describing super-conscious states such as samadhi. I would appreciate if somebody starts a wikistub on samadhi.

Every great character such as the Christ, Muhammad etc. have been made controversial by scholars. Relavent sections on them in wikipedia do not include those details, though ! I am not telling that there should not be NPOV stance. But let us judge for ourselves what the scholars really say and how sincere they are, else there will be "edit wars". What few "scholars" opine, should not become basis for controversy. The Britannica had a section on Sri Ramakrishna and only reference book it suggested was "Kali's child"- not including even Kathamrita, Lilaprasanga etc. That is certainly not NPOV :)

Last, i did study in Ramakrishna mission school and your fair warning has been noticed ! Ramashray 14:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for Ramakrishna is unabashed hagiography. For a full and clear discussion of the issues regarding Ramakrishna's sexuality, please see: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/ jodyrrr Mar 8, 2005

Yes, this is some of the material I knew was out there; thank you for the reference. (I hope that anyone who joins this discussion will sign their contributions so we can keep this civil. I am really put off by the tone, the ad hominum attacks etc. that characterize that dispute. I hope we can rise above that here.) At this point I am working on a response to Ramashray's comments. If one actually goes to the articles on the characters he mentions, one will find a difference in their treatment that we would do well to follow here; e.g. There are artilces about Jesus as well as Christ. And they are scholarly and encyclopedic. Controversy is not swept under the rug or erased; it is right there out front and dealt with in as NPOV as possible. If we work harder, then this article can rise to wikipedia standards. If one wants to read a treatment of Ramakrishna as a "saint" then there will be links to the Ramakrishna Mission site... One will also be able to follow links to the scholarly "opinion" that devotees may find offensive, even blasphemous, as well. That is what NPOV means, no? Emyth 19:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Emyth,

Pls dont waste your time in preparing a response to my comments. Its not necessary. Whatever your response be on Ramakrishna, it will be based on Jeffry Kripal's work. The author neither knows how to read nor how to write in Bengali. The mission, monastic order and Ramakrishna-Vivekananda are held in very high esteem in India and even people from other 'faiths' such as dwaita, vishistadwaita etc. look upon Ramakrishna with great reverence. In fact, before Kripal's work, the sources which he uses such as Kathamrita and Leelaprasanga have been read by millions in India (both scholars and lay people) and such interpretations as Kripal makes occurred to nobody.

So before commenting on anybody who belongs to 'other' culture, it is necessary to understand their culture.

I would like to point out several scholarly articles and the user comments which have appeared in this connection at

columnists such as Rajeev Srinivasan (address at IITM alumni), S. N. Balagangadhara (India and her traditions), Sankrant Sanu, Rajeev Malhotra etc. have written extensively on the same. Please read them once. Just for the sake of making an article 'imapartial' we should not be putting what every other person says, right ?

As regarding Jodyrr's link - it is difficult to get full and clear discussion as most of the Indians, who are spiritually oriented and are authority on the lives of Gurus dont have internet access !!

Ramashray 05:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rajeev Malhotra's critique of Kali's Child is refuted here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/tantrictruth.html

Swami Tyagananda's is answered here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/textuality.html

jodyrrr Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:10PM MST

I'm a Vedantist, and I have to admit that while the article certainly expresses some of my feelings and beliefs, it is far from neutral.

Also, I'm wowed that there is no reference to Sarada Devi, who does have her own article. 23:39, Apr 28, 2005 User:70.33.35.194

NPOV Dispute RESOLVED? - After 2+ months of work, I suggest that we have an article that is well on its way to being NPOV and encyclopedic. As the person who invoked the NPOV Dispute in the first place, I am tentatively suggesting that we might consider removing it. Not that our task is finished; there is more work to do; but if you, Ramashray, agree that what we have is a disinterested, neutral review of the facts and NOT a slanderous jeremiad against your guru, then I feel that we can move on. Are we agreed? Or have I entirely misread the situation....Let me know...Thanks. Emyth 11:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dear all,

May i request the members to consider Draft/Sri Ramakrishna, article insted of the present one ? The article contains the previous contributions of members, includes more details on Sri Sarada Devi, also link to Kali's child !! As an Indian and one associated with Ramakrishna mission, i find the article more informative and encyclopidic. The previous article has something about vidyamaya and avidyama etc. which were not very clearly put in... I must also thank User: Swami Vimokshananda for this article.

What say others ??

Ramashray 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Ramashray, I am a follower of Ramakrishna, but the article at Draft/Sri Ramakrishna in its current form is not acceptable for a neutral encyclopedia. I believe that the Ramakrishna Kathamrita is factual. But most people in the wider world do not. Just as the Jesus article must present the views and evidence both of Jesus' followers and of unbelievers, so must this article for Ramakrishna. I believe that most of the text in that article could be merged with the present article, but it must be done in an encyclopedic, neutral way. I would be happy to try to help you do that.

But before we do that, what problems do you have with the present article that prevent us from removing the POV tag from it? --goethean 16:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Goethean,

I have no objection in removing the POV tag. But i could not clearly understand why the tag was put in first place and what great change has been done to the article (except putting Kali's child article, for which i have no objection. But mere addition of such an article makes it netural ??). I request Emyth to remove the tag. Also consider merging the contents of draft with present article. I would like to see the present article to include materials which would then can become aids for "Indain renaissance" and "Bhakthi movement". goetheancould you help pls Ramashray 05:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ramashray, the differences between POV text and NPOV text can seem subtle. For example:

Ramakrishna often experienced the divine presence.

and:

Mahendranath Gupta wrote that Ramakrishna often experienced a divine presence.

The first is unacceptable to Wikipedia because it implies that the divine exists, and that Ramakrishna experienced it. The second statement merely describes what M wrote. It implies nothing about god or divinity. These subtle differences are extremely important to Wikipedia.

There is very little, if anything, that is not allowed on Wikipedia. But all text must be written from a neutral point of view. We can describe some of what the Kathamrita says, but we must not claim that it is true for all people. When your information is presented neutrally, your information can reach people whose points of view are very different than that of your own.

Maybe some of the information at Draft/Ramakrishna should go to an article on Ramakrishna Kathramrita. How would you feel about that? --goethean 16:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing NPOV tag. Article Ramakrishna Kathamrita may not be necessary; insted this article itself may be made to netural. Ramashray 04:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

hi folks, the present article is below par, I'm afraid. The Draft/Ramakrishna isn't good, either. The draft looks like a copied text from a usual Ramakrishna Paramahamsa book that we get from Ramakrishna Mission. Someone has to take up the task of presenting more *facts* about this great soul and write it in an order that makes sense. The present article didn't make much sense to me when I read it. Having read a lot about Sri RKM, I believe that the article doesn't do justice in telling what it should, to those who're reading about him for the first time. Look at the article from a "reading for the first time about him" perspective. Beside that, the article needs to be categorised and made more encyclopedic.

Also, the statements like "Ramakrishna often experienced the divine presence" should be avoided. That is truly a POV.

Erotic Passions & the Quest for the Divine

As an ardent 'fan' of Vivekananda and through him of of his spiritual guide, the Paramhansa, though not necessarily in agreement with everyone in the Ramakrishna Mission, that he created, I would like to add both both of them were emphatic on the need to question every edict that is handed down to us.

I believe, I am convinced, that both of them were in touch with the Divine and I am not bothered too much by the homoeroticsm that Kirpal talks about. With or without it both Vivekananda and Ramkrishna achieved a level of awareness of the infinite that we can only aspire to.

Having said that, it is also true, that erotic passion of the right brain kind is a phenomenon that is similar to intuition, insight and enlightenment so it is not unlikely that passions, erotic or otherwise, could have played a part in the realisation of the grand vision.

Unfortunately, the 'relegious' community has unilaterally come to the conclusion that spiritual enlightenment is incompatible with sexual activity. Whether it is the Catholic Church crossing swords with the Da Vinci Code over Mary Magdalene or the Ramakrishna Mission that is hypersensitive to references of homoeroticism in their leader ... we are always being told that the Divine do not need sex.

However there are enough images of Kali-on-Shiva to challenge, if not ridicule, this juvenile stubborness 203.145.156.130

Swami Ashokananda says that "sex" is an activity performed at the body level, and those who perform it associate 'themselves' with their bodies more and more. One who has realised that he/she is "spirit", the atman, cannot indulge in such an act - after the realisation. That much is the reason for people not accepting the allegations that the realised souls can have sex or for that matter that they care for their body.

The images of Kali-on-shiva you are referring to had to do with Tantriks. Hence i dont know if such images can challenge the vedantists.

One more thing to be noted is, Ramakrishna's teaching centred around realisation of God for which he saw - Kamini, kanchan -"lust and greed" as the main obstacle. Now on that person, if you make allegations on those front, it will surely be challenged.

Ramashray

Protest Kali's Child

I strongly protest the inclusion of a defamatory and shoddy work that masquerades as scholarship. Of course, I'am refering to Kali's child. Sri Ramakrishna is the Thakur of the Hindus, and as such, the Hindus have the rights to define any content that will disseminate information about him. The only controversy about Sri Ramakrishna is in the heads of the outsiders from the American Academy. There are serious questions that have been raised about their scholarship as regards Hinduism. A minority of Nobodies have no right to define our(Hindu) religious Leaders. The place for all of kripal's work should be a tag under his name. Till such a time that there is not a satisfactory conclusion to the dispute w.r.t the Hindus, none of their (Kripal and co) works will be credible enough to be used to describe any Hindu experiences. Anything less will mean Wikipedia subscribes to their bias. I'm appalled at outsiders raising questions about the divinity of Sri Ramakrishna based on dubious "scholarship". Such pernicious and malicious attempts to cast aspersions on Sri Ramakrishna will not go unchallenged. Orientalism and Racism are well and alive, just read some of the comments here. NPOV is a nice excuse to disparage , humiliate and de-legitimize non-western experiences. A pre-cursor to genocide is the portrayal of a people and their experiences as sub-human. A billion Hindus and a rising India will never be coerced or browbeaten into submission by nefarious forces. Jai Hind! Jai Shri Ram!

Varahamihira 23:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

Kripal is a researcher and evidently does not have any ulterior motive to defame Ramakrishna. While he may have misinterpreted some of the connotations in M's text, his basic idea about homoerotic allusions in several of Ramakrishna's sayings -- is quite evident in the original text itself. It is also true that the English translation of Kathamrita(Gospel of Ramakrishna by Swami Nikhilananda) does omit these sections from the text, which points out to an obvious act of unwanted revision. Kathamrita is above all a historical document and to tamper with it, suggests an intention to hide things under the carpet. Ramakrishna may be Thakur to you, but for the Wikipedians -- he is a personality whom we all want to know about. Hence, all historical evidences must be provided before us -- so that we may judge rationally. To provide information about Kripal's book is not to defame Ramakrishna, but merely to provide relevant information/views about his multi-dimensional personality. This is not the space to effuse about the belief in untainted purity of an Avataric manifestation. --- Rangeet

First, It is a fallacy that being a "researcher " precludes one from bias. Most Humanities "research" is about politics. The source of funding for such work and the basic assumptions one starts with before building a hypothesis inevitably narrows down the kind of conclusions one reaches. While the effects of underlying assumptions may not make much of a difference in the "material sciences", they create a political minefield in the humanities. Couple this with the social impact that such "sciences" have, then one can only laugh about "evidently ... no ulterior motives".

Science is not about facts. Science is about approximate explanations. I can have multiple theories that equally explain a phenomenon satisfactorily. The theory that one picks for an explanation at any given time has a lot to do with convienience. Science is not about truth. it is about possibilities. Works beautifully for physical sciences, questionable at best in psychoanalyzing dead people. That Thakur lived is an absolute. That he was a Homosexual is a propostion that can only have two values: true or false. Even forgetting Kirpal's dismal attempts at translation, or his much questioned use of psychoanlaysis as a tool in formulating a hypothesis, the fact that it is still a possibility does not provide for any absolute conclusion. The onus is on kirpal to prove beyond the possibility of doubt the theory he proposes.

Secondly, misinterpreting "some connotations" merely points to a deeper flaw in the tools used by the scholar ( not that I think kirpal qualifies for one ). For anybody that seeks to translate a work, the basic criterion is that he have a good, if not excellent, command over the language. That Kirpal misinterprets "some" is not in question here. That he even misinterprets in the first place creates a big question mark over any claims of domain expertise he makes. A cursory glance at the mistakes he makes leave no doubt that the man has not even a minimum command over bengali. Further, there is scope here for pyschoanalyzing Kirpal himself to better understand the assumptions he makes before he forms the theory.

Add to this the use of psychoanalysis on a dead person, something that Psychoanalysis prohibits, and his refusal to engage in debate from academics that specialize in it. one can only conclude that kirpal's pretensions of scholarship are at best dubious. Exactly why I feel that the wikipedia page should not cite his works till the dispute is resolved.

lastly, If the monks of the Thakur's order had any intentions of censorship, they would have done so at the very first publication of the kathaamrita itself. It is infantile to contend that the order deliberatley chose to make unwarranted revisions to hide his alleged homosexuality. There could be a million different reasons. Again, no absolutes. Kirpal's work deserves no mention here. Perhaps, it would be more fitting in an article about how not to go about building theories!!

All in all, the diss-the-brown- factory is in full bloom egged on by servile "natives"!! 24.172.197.45 21:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

I agree fundamentally, but I would put it in terms that are a little more complex. We don't know what Kripal's motives are. But I believe that a large part of this debate revolves around the different sexual mores and values of Hindus, Americans, and Ramakrishna. Kripal's claim is that Ramakrishna was heavily influenced by tantra. If true, and if it is true that there was an erotic element in Ramakrishna's yoga, then it is easy to see why some of his words and actions might have embarrassed and been been suppressed (even subconsciously) by more mainstream Hindus. It is also easy to see why the more cosmopolitan Kripal would want to "free" Ramakrishna from this suppression. And it is also easy to see why this would outrage contemporary followers of Ramakrishna and other Hindus. — goethean ॐ 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No probs with the revisions, Goethean. I dont think there is any serious debate about the fact that Ramakrishna was involved in Tantra-- His primary affiliations were to Kali, the Shakta Tantric Mother-goddess. The complications arise due to Ramakrishna's later initiation into Advaitism, His involvement in other religio-mystical sadhana and his explicit denunciation of the Left-handed path(which is, in any case, not the only but merely one of the Tantric paths). However, Tantra of ninteenth century Bengal is itself a highly complex phenomenon -- involving a revision of iconography, practices and philosophy. I think Vivekananda's way of looking at his Master has precluded other strategies... and its a bit like Pauline revision of the Nazarine. For example, see Lex Hixon's Preface to the Meetings with Ramakrishna. And, being a Bangali myself, I can avouch that Kripal didn't mistranslate where it mattered the most...atleast he didn't "literally" mistranslate.(And it is true that the Math tries to evade references to this aspect of Ramakrishna's personality, which is significant) However, what one makes out of those sayings depends upon her/his interpretation of Tantric hermeneutics itself. For me, Ramakrishna lived in a city which was brimming with post-Enlightenment thought-- but He was not Himself sufficiently influenced by it. Hence, the post-Enlightenment categories of dyadic sexual/erotic orientation does not help us to understand Him(not that I believe that there can be One monolithic "understanding").All things said, Kripal does not deserve the treatment that he has received --although such a reception tells us more about 20th century Indian(largely urban Bengali) culture that it enlightens us about Ramakrishna Himself. --- Rangeet

Added some other references to Ramakrishna's sexuality, the interpreters differ among each other about Ramakrishna's sexual/erotic orientation. This has been done not only to hint at the variety of opinion in the field (and scholarly study too) but also to bail out Kripal from being the solitary pharmakos. --- Rangeet

The References have been taken from the book, Kali's Child itself. It will be more relevant to mention it in the Jeffrey J. Kripal article, adding it here will make it superfluous, and unnecessary. I agree we can mention the Kali's Child, but there is no point in flooding the page with the same material. --vineeth 17:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My point is just that... the references are NOT pointing out to the Same Material. True, they have been talking about aspects of Ramakrishna's eroticism/sexuality, but they are strategising their points in different ways and coming to considerably different conclusions. For example, Kripal's thoughts about Ramakrishna places it into the greater Tantric hermeneutics,while Kakar thinks of it as an example of the idiosyncretic ambivalences in South Asian sexuality and how it defies conventional Freudian categories. Sumit Sarkar's approach to the text is neo-historicist, and it cannot be equated with the Isherwoodian views (some of which are intensely personal). Hence, am replacing the text that you have deleted... I am removing the Isherwood info as the allusion is indirect. And what about the Avatara Varishthaya? Why did you remove it? I stated a "belief", did not claim it to be true(or false)...... Rangeet

My apologies for removing "Avatara Varishthaya", that was a mistake, but i am still not convinced about adding other superfluous material. --vineeth 06:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the material to be superfluous... but I do feel that the balance of the article has been disturbed as other portions of the article are not sufficiently documented. Hence, the article seems to be stressing on a particular aspect of the "contemporary reception" of Ramakrishna. I think we need to develop on the M-theory bit, can you help? Also about the Avatarvaad-- the relevant theology, can you supply some info? What about developing Ramakrishna's belief in Tantra, his particular affiliations -- and situating it in a larger discourse (I feel that the Vedanta bit has often been overtly stressed, and that too only that of the pop-fizz variety)Also, what about identifying the Ramakrishna's particular affiliations with the Islam and Christianity ,a bit more?.... Rangeet

The Kali's Child is a collection of all these references. These references are more suitable to the Kali's Child article and not here. I am moving them to the relevant article here. Mentioning Kali's Child is ok, because here i am a wikipedian first and then his devotee. I accept that POV should be maintained but you cannot flood the article with details referenced and explained in Kali's Child. They are more suited to the main article. Thanks. --vineeth 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No probs Vineeth, I agree to your point now. Thank You. .... Rangeet

Avatarvaad

Added the single line about the belief in Ramakrishna's Avataric identity. Can someone develop on that.. I mean about the Theological aspect of it, as is relevant to Ramakrishna and the Ramakrishnite Movement? --- Rangeet

Response new thread

First, It is a fallacy that being a "researcher " precludes one from bias. Most Humanities "research" is about politics. The source of funding for such work and the basic assumptions one starts with before building a hypothesis inevitably narrows down the kind of conclusions one reaches. While the effects of underlying assumptions may not make much of a difference in the "material sciences", they create a political minefield in the humanities. Couple this with the social impact that such "sciences" have, then one can only laugh about "evidently ... no ulterior motives".

Science is not about facts. Science is about approximate explanations. I can have multiple theories that equally explain a phenomenon satisfactorily. The theory that one picks for an explanation at any given time has a lot to do with convienience. Science is not about truth. it is about possibilities. Works beautifully for physical sciences, questionable at best in psychoanalyzing dead people. That Thakur lived is an absolute. That he was a Homosexual is a propostion that can only have two values: true or false. Even forgetting Kirpal's dismal attempts at translation, or his much questioned use of psychoanlaysis as a tool in formulating the hypothesis, the fact that it is still a possibility does not provide for any absolute conclusion. The onus is on kirpal to prove beyond the possibility of doubt the theory he proposes.

Secondly, misinterpreting "some connotations" merely points to a deeper flaw in the tools used by the scholar ( not that I think kirpal qualifies for one ). For anyone that seeks to translate a work, the basic criterion is that he have a good, if not excellent, command over the language he/she seeks to translate from. That Kirpal misinterprets "some" is not in question here. That he even misinterprets in the first place poses a big question mark over any claims of domain expertise he makes. A cursory glance at the mistakes he makes leave no doubt that the man has not even a minimum command of bengali. Further, there is scope here for pyschoanalyzing Kirpal himself to better understand the assumptions he makes before he forms the theory.

Add to this the use of psychoanalysis on a dead person, something that Psychoanalysis prohibits, and his refusal to engage in debate from academics that specialize in it. one can only conclude that kirpal's pretensions of scholarship are at best dubious. Exactly why I feel that the wikipedia page should not cite his works till the dispute is resolved.

lastly, If the monks of the Thakur's order had any intentions of censorship, they would have done so at the very first publication of the kathaamrita itself. It is infantile to contend that the order deliberatley chose to make unwarranted revisions to hide his alleged homosexuality. There could be a million different reasons. Again, no absolutes. Kirpal's work deserves no mention here. Perhaps, it would be more fitting in an article about how not to go about building theories!!

All in all, the diss-the-brown-folks factory is in full bloom, egged on by servile "natives"!!

Varahamihira 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

Hehhe... well Gadadhar chattopadhyay lived for sure, but whether he is/was Thakur or not is purely a matter of faith... I am not suggesting that faith is devoid of science or vice versa... but merely that talking about things from the perspective of a Math-defined faithful is to leave aside the "unfaithful" ... not to mention people like me who are faithful but deemed to be "heterodox". Hence I have added the Avatara Varishtaya line in the intro section, and I would happily contribute to aspects of theology of Avatarvaad as relevant to Ramakrishna. But for all that, I would not leave Kripal out. We are not here to censor facts, but to present them .. in all their diversity and divergences. I do believe that Ramakrishna was/is an Avatar, but I dont think this is/was a fact... but rather a matter of belief that lies beyond the realms of a Wikipedia article.(Note... Avatarvaad doesnt lie beyond the realms of the article, but merely the unequivocal statement claiming Ramakrishna as an Avatar.. or adding words like "Thakur" to his name) What we are concerned in here is to gain knowledge about the "man" Ramakrishna(that doesnt leave aside the Avatara Varishthaya strain) and to broaden our perspectives about knowing him. True, all knowledge systems/ methodologies serve as political constructs, meant for categorisation and control. This is true not merely for so-called "Western" forms of knowledge but also for South Asian hermeneutical traditions. There is no reason to think that a Navya Nyaya tarka-vagish is not using the Foucauldian gaze while the Orientalist is doing so. That would be an attempt to essentialise the Saidian "Western thought"... When I suggested that Kripal is a researcher I merely wanted to point out that he shares a minimum bit of responsibility for what he is stating, unlike people who are evidently biased about the "other". Also, a researcher in a post-modern post-structuralist age combines subjective and objective devices more consciously and delves in heterogenous research methodologies. It is naive to suggest that a Chicago professor in the late 20th century still uses the monolithic Enlightenment tool for his research. Also, and this needs to be emphasised, what Kripal translated is evidently true... u can grab a copy of Kathamrita and read it for urself. It is also true that the Ramakrishna mission left out these very lines in the English translation (and dont u scent the discourse of control in here?). Kripal's translation is not dismal -- far from it. Where he erred, for example in the translation of "maagi"... the word itself is used for various purposes, and Ramakrishna's use of it is often ambivalent (noone can leave out the abusive strain from the use of the word completely, especially in the late 19th century Bangali perspective). .. btw, Kathamrita in Bengali is not published by the mission (but by the Kathamrita Bhavan)... so there's no point in saying that monks of the Order could have censored the portions. Yes.. there are no absolutes... and hence the Avatarvaad as well as the homoerotic strain... both are alleged "facts". If Ramakrishna is deemed to be a queer bisexual, a transsexual... that also is not absolute. (And that which is Absolute has never been an uchhishta)The canonisation of Ramakrishna's "thought" is also not absolute. Nothing is absolute.... so even views about Ramakrishna's sexuality and spirituality are not absolute. We can engage ourselves in this plethora of suggestions... and I as a Ramakrishnite can find unity even in these divergences. Perhaps we are talking about similar things with different word-bags. (water/paani/ jol). An article on Ramakrishna, a man who had the guts to proclaim "jata moth tata poth" cannot seriously leave out any moth... any opinion, even if the Math rails and storms. The Math's views about Ramakrishna is only one of the many ways to see him(and not that there is only a single view within the Math itself-- Brahmananda differs considerably from Abhedananda)... and to leave aside other ways of seeing him is like the dogmatic blabbering which Ramakrishna detested himself.To include Kripal in the article is not an effort to be "scientific" (whatever it may mean) but merely to place all the views about Ramakrishna before us . This should include so-called "western" as well as "eastern" perspectives... facts testify that all the disciples of Ramakrishna were not always towing the now-Official-math line...and so there's no monolithic "view" about Ramakrishna... what we have are a number of views... Each of them stands open to scrutiny.... -- Rangeet

The crux of the matter is this: X builds a theory. X uses certain assumptions( what you call "subjective devices" ), methodology and tools to formulate his theory. Now, if the very methodology/ tools X uses are under scrutiny and in dispute, then, forget validity, there is no theory in the first place. A theory has to pass certain rigours before it can be called one. Hence my contention that kali's child does not deserve any space here.

I'am not so insecure about thakur as to suggest that their be just one view. But, all views should be arrived at through rigorous and robust frameworks. Kali' child does not qualify as a view. Varahamihira 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

New addtion

I note a new addtion: "The book emphasizes upon an alleged homoerotic strain in Ramakrishna's life, sadhana and philosophy. It has been criticized by the Mission as being based on many mistranslations and deceptions."

I suggest that the above be changed as follows: The book theorizes on a homoerotic strain in Ramakrishna's life, sadhana and philosophy. It has been critiqued by Hindu followers and the Ramakrishna Mission as being based on mistranslations of primary sources and an incorrect use of pychoanalysis as a tool.

The suggestion is more accurate and more "NPOV"!! If no contention, I will assume the new suggestion is good to use. Varahamihira 05:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Varahamihira

I find your new suggestion more accurate and more "NPOV". --vineeth 07:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well.. as for myself (who had added the first sentence, not the second), I have problems with your suggestions. For example, the phrase... "Hindu followers"... I am a Hindu follower too but I do not allege Kripal of wilful mistranslation.. how to define a consensus of Hindu followers... and who precisely is a Hindu follower... and besides a Ramkrishnite can well be someone who is not a Hindu follower...there is no consensus about what the Hindus think about Ramakrishna and it would be naive to generalise. I don't have probs when Ramakrishna Math and Mission is mentioned because its true that it has disagreed to Kripal's suggestions. However, it must be noted that the Math does not have jurisdictional authority to monitor what people think about Ramakrishna... The Math is free to decide its opinion about Kripal's work and so are we free to judge for ourselves. As far as "emphasized" being changed to "theorised" I have no probs but I would insist on the use of the word "alleged". I think the phrase "and an incorrect use of pychoanalysis as a tool" is better than "and deceptions".... Rangeet

References

Tried to supply the relevant references to the citations that were sought for. .... Rangeet

Small NPOV line

"and was declared intellectually unsustainable by a handful of small-minded 'intellectuals'. "

seems sarcastic and NPOV to me. If others agree, please change it.128.211.254.142 14:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. — goethean ॐ 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

monograph by Swami Tyagananda

I just reverted a link to the following URL [1] of a personal web site which provides a download of a monograph written by a Swami Tyagananda who in the monograph says: "I am currently the minister of the Ramakrishna-Vedanta Society in Boston, Massachusetts. Before coming to the United States in 1998, I was editor of the Vedanta Kesari, a journal of the Ramakrishna Order."

The title of the monograph is Kali's Child Revisited, or, Didn't Anyone Check the Documentation? The monograph bears the copyright: "Copyright © 2000 by Swami Tyagananda".

I want to mention my reversion of the link to explain that my concern is not necessarily with the monograph itself, but rather with the copyright issues associated with distribution of a copyrighted monograph via a personal web site, which seems to me to fail the test of WP:EL. I have read both the book Kali's Child and the monograph by Swami Tyagananda. My impression is that the 103-page monograph is a thoughtful work and may be noteworthy if it can be shown to be a response from the Ramakrishna order. However the copyright is by an individual, not by the order, and the distribution of the monograph is from a personal web site and not from an official source of the Ramakrishna order.

At the very end of the monograph (p.103) the author says "The notes above are skeletal at best; the essay and notes are simply my own brief response to Kali's Child." However immediately following this closing paragraph appears the address "Ramakrishna Vedanta Society, 58 Deerfield Street, Boston, MA 02214" which implies endorsement of the essay by that organization.

Further investigation may be in order to determine if the monograph does in fact represent any sort of official position and if the monograph is distributed through any channel that might meet the test for WP:EL. Kripal's response to this monography is mentioned at Jeffrey_Kripal#Criticism.

Buddhipriya 20:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review for appropriateness

I have removed some material that seems rather strange: [2]. It is unclear what specific significance that quote has. The controversy surrounding the Kripal work is already covered in the article. I am not clear what point the material is trying to make. Since I generally follow a one-revert rule, I will ask other editors to look this over and if it is restored, they will need to make a judgement. Buddhipriya 00:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ramakrishna's Name

Re: "He adopted a name that is clearly Vaishnavite (Rama and Krishna are both incarnations of Vishnu)": Swami Prabhananda has convincingly argued that the name Ramakrishna was given by Ramakrishna's father. So the name would be "given" rather than adopted. Sw.my 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Better attacks on Kripal, please.

This edit adds a mention of and link to a review of a prize-winning academic religious studies book. The review was written by a retired civil servant and appeared in a daily Channai newspaper. I submit that in most academic areas, mentioning such a review would be considered giving undue weight to a perspective. — goethean ॐ 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is actually a review of "Invading the Sacred, An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America", and it reflects the way Hindus in general feel about Kripal's book, so mentioning it is necessary in my opinion. V. Sundaram is more than just a retired IAS officer.[3] --Mankar Camoran^talk 21:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the linked site, he has a degree in economics and is an associate newspaper editor. The point stands.

...it reflects the way Hindus in general feel about Kripal's book...

Well, you haven't established that at all. — goethean ॐ 21:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I cannot give the opinion of each and every Hindu, but if you read this and [.....] you will understand. --Mankar Camoran^talk 21:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the Academy is mentioned in the article, its criticism should also be mentioned. Also, News Today does not say that it is the personal opinion of the author which means it is the opinion of the newspaper, so I have changed that as well. I think it is now good enough. --Mankar Camoran^talk 10:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The criticism is more indirect. In particular, I found this paragraph questions the Academy's neutrality:

Kripal tells us that his is the standard methodology of advanced historico-critical studies as practised in the American Academy. I seriously doubt it. Do the Jesus Seminar scholars take Jesus' talk about his return to "unite with his followers" or Paul's supreme desire to know Christ and be united with him (be "in Christ") as mutual "homosexual entry"? Is Jesus pathologized simply because people said "He's gone mad" and Jesus' parents were concerned; and the Pharisees affirmed "He has Beelzebul in him"(Mark 3:21)? Does Jesus' foot function as a sexual object – "the sinful foot of God" – when "a woman with a bad name in town" anoints it and covers it with kisses (Luke 7:38)? And When Jesus sits down and dines with prostitutes and sinners (Matt 9:10) is the "intercourse" sexual? When Jesus proclaims that it would be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement than for the city that will not receive his disciples is he taken to be projecting his own sexual perversions and psychotic delusions of grandeur? Or, when Johann Tauler, the 14th century German mystic, writes "one who would know much about these (spiritual) matters would often have to keep to his bed, for his bodily frame could not support this", is this taken as evidence of massive sexual trauma? Do Kripal's colleagues in the American Academy take the Christian distinction between agape and eros simply as "so much theological talk"; and the early Christian "love-feasts" (that's where the concept of agape originated) as plain "sexual orgies" of "erotic communities"? This is precisely how Kripal has argued throughout Kali's Child. It was with good reason then that Huston Smith wrote that Kripal ought to have written about homosexual eroticism in Christian mysticism before writing Kali's Child.

Kripal has mentioned that this is the "standard methodology of advanced historico-critical studies as practised in the American Academy" and he has followed them to interpret Hindu terms and passages, but the Academy hasn't followed these methods to interpret Christian passages. This seriously undermines the Academy's credibility and it should be mentioned. --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A general critique of the methods of Anmerican academics needs to be included in an article on Ramakrishna? Are you listening to yourself? — goethean ॐ 16:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added academic sources that bring into question Kripal's work. I believe this approach is better than basing criticism on religious reasons ('Hindus were offended' for example), since the book does purport to be an academic (psycho)analysis. I highly recommend Invading the Sacred.* It not only questions the academic underpinnings of Kripal's book, but completely discredits them.

*Ramaswamy, Krishnan (2007). Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America. Delhi, India: Rupa & Co. ISBN 978-8129111821. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) ~ priyanath talk 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am very grateful to you for adding relevant material from the book. I could not but be reminded of this conversation from the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:

M. picked up another book, Munger's New Theology. Dr. Sarkar noticed it.

DOCTOR: "Munger has based his conclusions on nice argument and reasoning. It is not like your believing a thing simply because a Chaitanya or a Buddha or a Jesus Christ has said so."

M. (smiling): "Yes, we should not believe Chaitanya or Buddha; but we must believe Munger!"

DOCTOR: "Whatever you say."

M: "We must quote someone as our authority; so it is Munger." (The doctor smiles.)

Thanks again! --Mankar Camoran^talk 12:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Umm, how about some contemporary scholarship that views Ramakrishna in a positive light? (That is, not attributing his mysticism to suppressed sexuality etc.) There must be some contemporary scholars who give a different reading of Ramakrishna than Kripal, Sil, etc. If we include some of those here, perhaps balance could be better achieved.

Devadaru (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, how about renaming the section to "Controversies" or "Controversial scholarship"? The section deals only with controversial works at present. It can be renamed again when more universally accepted works are added. --Mankar Camoran^talk 11:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Very few academic works are ever "universally accepted". — goethean ॐ 15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

By "universally accepted" I meant works which are not considered controversial or offensive in academic circles. --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Its going to be difficult to find significant works of scholarship that abide by the Ramakrishna Mission's puritanical, sanitized image of RK. I don't think that there are any contemporary works of scholarship that are uncontroversial by your standards. The header should stay the way it is. — goethean ॐ 15:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also: Kali's Child and Kripal's work generally is not "considered controversial or offensive" in academic circles. It is only in India (and among conservative Indian NRIs in the US) that it was taken as outrageous and insulting. And I don't think that Sil's work generated any controversy. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The article already mentions "significant works of scholarship" exposing Kripal and the Academy for what they are. And just for your information, it is not controversial just by my standards. Huston Smith writes : "I doubt that any other book – not even those of early, polemical, poorly informed, and bigoted missionaries – has offended Hindu sensibilities so grossly. And understandably, for despite Kripal's protestations to the contrary in "Secret Talk : The Politics of Scholarship in Hindu Tantrism"(HDSB, Winter 2000/01), Kali's Child is colonialism updated." He is not an Indian. --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I respect Huston Smith about one hundred times more than your collection of Hindutvan scholars. But I think that he has made a mistake in this case. — goethean ॐ

'Better', not 'more'

Users Priyanath and Mankar Camoran have been gradually adding more and more negative reviews of Kali's Child to the article. There were positive reviews, but none have been added. Therefore, this section of the article is unbalanced. I am adding a POV template to the article until I can go to the library and research the general tenor of the reception of Kripal's book. — goethean ॐ 23:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't 'reviews', but issues that some very serious scholars have with Kripal's basic premise. The mention of Kripal's book, and the response by serious scholars, are both 'Contemporary Scholarship', which is the title of the section after all. Both 'sides' are neutral POV in the sense that they are a fairly dispassionate discussion of a very controversial work. I think that the section has achieved a neutral POV as it stands. Keep in mind that Kripal's work by itself could equally be seen to express a strong POV. In fact, this is simply scholars discussing whether it's valid to apply Freudian erotic psychoanalysis to Ramakrishna, and whether the proper methodology was used to reach the conclusions that Kripal did. Kripal and his side say yes, others say no. Both sides should get equal weight, and they do.~ priyanath talk 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. You describe an event, and then you use neutral language to describe the response to it. By your argument, we would describe what Gandhi did, and then describe the British conservative party's response to it. Then we would have one paragraph pro, one against. That is completely absurd. The response to Kali's Child was not uniform outrage. It was (first) mostly positive response from academia, and then drummed-up outrage from other sources, like a retired civil servant writing in a Chennai daily newspaper, the notability of which is highly debatable. But the picture that you have painted is completely one-sided. From your version of this article, one would get the absolutely false impression that the book was condemned from all sides. On the contrary, Kripal is a highly respected scholar who has been attacked by religious conservative activists who will not tolerate their guru being subjected to academic study. Fortunately, American scholars have not been silenced by Victorian Hindutvans. And mainstream media are not controlled by, and do not conform to the dictates of conservative religious activists. This article will be covering media sources other than those featuring your carefully selected group of conservative religious activists. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is not completely one sided, but actually quite balanced. It mentions that Kripal's book is a psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna. That is questionable, and should be mentioned (and is). It mentions that the book won an award. The award is rightly questioned. It mentions that Kripal accuses Ramakrishna of homoerotic passions and teachings and pedophiliac passions. That is a fairly extreme POV, which should be questioned, and is. Article says that Ramakrishna's mystical visions were actually erotic. That's also a fairly extreme POV, which is balanced by other scholars in the article. The section is entirely balanced, with Kripal's view of Ramakrishana (Homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.) balanced by scholars who disagree. This is done without any attacks against Kripal.

The controversy about the book was overblown, on both sides. There was a great deal of outrage, ad hominem attacks, straw man and red herring arguments from both sides. You present one side in your paragraph above, but entire articles and book chapters have been written about the two-sided controversy. I think that distracts from the real issue, the scholarship of Kripal's book, and the points that it makes. The article now covers those evenly, as I point out. I personally think that the two paragraphs about the book could each be cut in half and merged into one paragraph, but am happy with the current condition, where each side is given equal weight, as I show above. ~ priyanath talk 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article does not explain that there were positive reviews (which there were --- it would be extremely odd for a book with no positive academic reviews to receive an academic award), and that these reviews were by scholars, rather than by unqualified people like the retired civil servant I mentioned above. I will remedy this situation as soon as I can go to the library and do the research. Until then (or until someone else balances the text), the template stays. — goethean ॐ 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New article?

I propose that a new article be created on the lines of Jesus' sexuality and Homosexual readings of Jesus and John instead of enlarging this section. --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, those articles already exist. If they didn't, my response would be "more power to you". In fact, maybe I can suggest some references, like Ronald H. Miller, an article that I wrote (Miller believes that Saint Paul had homoerotic desires, that Jesus was not a virgin, and that Paul's guilt over his homoeroticism fueled the central Christian doctrine of Original Sin). You are implying that such articles would offend me. In doing so, you are assuming that I am a conservative Christian. You assume this because you see my contributions to this article as attacks on Hinduism and Indian culture. But, as my comments above about translations shows, I am genuinely tring to get to (and write) the neutral truth about Ramakrishna. This means: not just the truth as the Ramakrishna Mission describes it, and not necessarily just the truth as postmodern US academics see it. You may not believe that I am trying to get to the truth. Frankly, I couldn't care less what you believe. But the rules of Wikipedia demand that you assume good faith. — goethean ॐ 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your comment. You mean something like Ramakrishna's sexuality. New articles are created when the current article is too long, not with the intent to hide information which someone finds disagreeable. — goethean ॐ 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like more opinions. --Mankar Camoran^talk 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But what is the intent of moving the text on Ramakrishna's sexuality to a new article? — goethean ॐ 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Kali's Child received significant press, is therefore notable, and is rightly included in this article. So are the scholars who question the scholarship the book is based on. Moving it all to a new article doesn't make sense, except if the section here gets too large. In that case, there should still be a summary in this article. ~ priyanath talk 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It makes sense. --Mankar Camoran^talk 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Goethean - I certainly don't think that the review of Kripal's book should be hidden. It's an attempt by a western scholar to understand Ramakrishna, and is notable. Just like people here don't believe that you are a conservative Christian (per your struck out comment above), you have to understand that those wanting to make the article balanced are not just Hindu fundies or Ramakrishna fundies. But if someone says that Ramakrishna has pedophiliac tendencies, then of course the other side should be presented, if it's done by notable scholars, in an evenhanded way, which the article does now. What's all the big fuss? (I'm talking to both sides here). ~ priyanath talk 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the fuss? The fuss is the non-neutral, unbalanced, very carefully selected content that you have added to the article --- all attacks on Kripal, some clearly non-notable. And the positive (scholarly) reviews of Kripal's work, which you have omitted. Which, when I can, I will add to the article to balance the coverage of the subject matter, at which time the template can be removed. Other than that, no fuss. — goethean ॐ 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

None of those references attack Kripal, that's one of the red herrings I alluded to above. They do pick at his scholarship and methodology. There is actually alot more where they came from. I only included notable academics commenting on issues specifically included in the Kripal book review/paragraph in this article. ~ priyanath talk 17:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the sources of criticism of Kripal's scholarship and methodology (there are too many sources to choose from, frankly, so I'm only including the most authoritative, though all of them are WP:RS). Narasingha Sil is perhaps the most notable now, since he has his own paragraph in this article. I left for the footnote Sil's opinion that Kripal is a "shoddy scholar with a perverse imagination who has thoughtlessly "ransacked" another culture and produced a work which is, in short, "plain shit"." And, I removed some of the Bhattacharyya quotes, shortening the paragraph. ~ priyanath talk 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. — goethean ॐ 14:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, I'm really making a good faith effort to find the best sources for this, in response to your concern that these people are not neutral, or not notable. There really are two sides to the story of Kripal's book. I sincerely believe that they are both being presented in a scholarly manner, and given the equal weight they each deserve. ~ priyanath talk 16:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have done nothing but continuously build up more and more coverage of the critiques of Kripal's book, ignoring anything positive that was said about it. That is not neutral. I have not yet had a chance to build up the positive material about the book in attempt to balance out your lop-sided contributions, but I will. — goethean ॐ 17:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

POV, Undue Weight in Contemporary Scholarship section

I've put the POV tag back in this section, per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute: "In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved."

Changes to that section should be discussed here, just as I had been doing above. At this point, there is an extreme undue weight given to the positive 'reviews' of the book. One could easily add an equal amount of scholarly negative reviews to balance it, but it's obvious the whole section is being given undue weight already. One possibility would be to have a summary in this article, and break off a separate article on Scholars views of Ramakrishna's sexuality. I've added a note at Wikipedia talk:Hinduism-related topics notice board to invite other editors who are interested in helping to resolve this dispute. I noted there that I'll be taking a few days off from editing here to give others a chance to resolve something that I obviously couldn't. ~ priyanath talk 16:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is you, User:Priyanath, who added a completely non-neutral, obviously cherry-picked paragraph consisting entirely of negative snippets and sentence fragments, which gave a completely inaccurate --- indeed, deceptive --- view of the reception of Kripal's book. Then you defend your contribution with the clearly false claim that a paragraph which describes the book is actually a paragraph that praises or appraises it. In response to your obviously POV contribution, I have added text which will make sure that the readers of this article are not decieved by your frankly dishonest addition. Why don't you fix your own contributions and try to contribute positively to the article rather than merely adding snippets which express your own POV? — goethean ॐ 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Noticeboard. — goethean ॐ 16:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now significantly shortened the section on the positive reception of Kali's Child. Please let me know if you still feel that the article gives undue weight to this topic. — goethean ॐ 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Outside view: I came here after reading Priyanath's comment on WT:HNB, and having read the Kali's Child section (this version), here are my views and suggestions for improvement

1. The first paragraph is ok though it needs some copyediting (small 'r' in Religious; wikilink Freudian, don't wikilink homoerotic twice etc) and tightening of prose (example, the last sentence does not make grammatical sense).
2. However the subsequent quotes and reviews do seem undue in this article (which is on Ramakrishna and not Kripal), and I think they should be considerably shortened; something along the lines "While certain scholars including X, Y, Z found the argument revelatory and compelling, others did not. The latter attributed Kripal's supposed errors to either misunderstanding of Hinduism or psychological analysis; incorrect translation; colonialism; or to a willful distortion of sources and evidence." (feel free to rephrase and add refs)
3. The quotes, reviews and criticism details can/should be added to either the Jeffrey J. Kripal page or to a new article on Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, which can then be linked from here.

I don't intend to edit the article myself at the moment, but hope Priyanath and Goethean will be be able to work out the differences. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a little perspective from the past... Various Ramakrishna devotees are absolutely vociferous in their missionizing with this page... They use the Wikipedia to produce a hagiography of their saint and will not tolerate any alternative views and perspectives to their their veneration of the man. As, I believe, the first Wikipedian to try to add a neutral, factual reference to Kripal's Kali's Child to the article, I eventually gave up under the onslaught of bad-faith and parochial argumentation by Ramakrishna missionaries. I see that it still continues. If there is ever a move to freeze a truly NPOV paragraph about Kripal's perspective as part of this article, I would join in testifying and voting for it. Emyth (talk) 23:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Abecedare for the comments. It seems to me also that a short mention of Kripal's work should be enough for this page, and the extensive quotations and discussion be left for either Jeffery Kripal or a separate page on the book itself. As for Emyth, yes, this article still comes across as written by devoted followers. I think a disciplined copyedit however could remove at least a good portion of the bias.

The controversy re: Kripal does show how difficult it is to attain NPOV, if indeed it is even possible (which I somewhat doubt in cases like this). Perhaps, more people on the planet would side against Kripal than with; but if only US residents were counted, Kripal might win. (This is my personal suspicion, not backed up by any hard facts.) Hope to get back to editing soon. Devadaru (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This conversation brings me to another thought. To my knowledge, few, if any, articles other than this one have a separate section for "contemporary scholarship". Instead, in most articles, the entire article consists of text informed by contemporary scholarship, and any text that is not so informed is progressively replaced by text which is. However, in this article, contemporary scholarship is (or appears to be) deeply at odds with historical understanding, which, perhaps we can all agree, is more hagiographic. I think that an eventual good version of this article would have all sections informed by contemporary scholarship, including Sil, Kripal, and Kakar, as well as the more devotee-like Ramakrishna Mission-approved sources. In other words, there is much work to be done to this article to bring it to "good article" status. — goethean ॐ 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Any article that is passionately reviewed or edited by anyone is bound to face NPOV disputes - hopefully these will be worked out. About the section on "Kali's Child" - it seems a bit long in comparison to the rest of the article (except for the Legacy section) and appears to have a number of quotes with a similar theme that could easily be summarized, if deemed acceptable by others. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 00:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, as is mentioned above (I think), none of the material (quotes) on this article are mentioned on the Jeffery Kripal article, where it probably deserves more attention. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It was almost a revelation to re-read Neutral point of view after many months. What a well-crafted treatment of the issue! Good reminders about avoiding "weasel words" and statements like "some say", "many people believe", and so on, and on sticking to verifiable facts. Devadaru (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've condensed the book reviewy parts of the Kripal supporters' statements, and kept the parts of the quotes that addressed specific aspects of scholarship. In other words, just saying 'this is a great book' isn't encyclopedic, except perhaps for an article on the book itself, which could have book reviews. The section is still absurdly long, with two thirds supporting or praising the book (the first two paragraphs), and one third questioning various aspects of scholarship, methodology, and academic integrity. One could easily add another paragraph disputing the academic scholarship, etc. of the book, in order to balance the two sides, but that is no solution, in my opinion.

P.S. I also removed the source of the reviews from the body of the article. Footnotes are enough for that. God forbid that we have two lines for every quote just stating the prestigious journal they were taken from. That's more appropriate for the back cover of the book itself, and for the footnotes here.

Both sides are valid to present, by the way. They meet WP:RS, and both carry the weight of some serious scholars. So both sides should be given equal weight.

I've added a tag for Undue Weight for that reason, and also for the reason that the subject itself is given undue weight in the overall article. I still believe the section fails on both grounds: NPOV and Undue Weight, so both tags should remain until this can be hashed out on the talk page. The solution, in my opinion, is to reduce those three paragraphs to one, with both sides presented equally, and break off the rest to the Kripal article.

Alternately, would be to add another paragraph from yet more sources, who question the use of Freudian analysis on someone dead for over 100 years, the fact that Freud himself questioned using his own methods on non-western minds, and more. That would help to balance the undue weight. What do others think? ~ priyanath talk 22:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I missed Abecedare's suggestion above. I think it's a big step in the right direction and will work on a condensed version of the now overly long version, and propose it here in the coming days - and propose moving the lengthy quotes (on both sides) to the Kripal article. And of course see if we can develop consensus on something that will be NPOV and give equal weight to both sides. Below is Abecedare's proposal again (which he said he wouldn't be able to do himself). The only slight disagreement I have is that the opening paragraph essentially is promoting Kripal's book and idea, so it may have to include some of the scholarly disagreement in that paragraph: ~ priyanath talk 04:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

1. The first paragraph is ok though it needs some copyediting (small 'r' in Religious; wikilink Freudian, don't wikilink homoerotic twice etc) and tightening of prose (example, the last sentence does not make grammatical sense).
2. However the subsequent quotes and reviews do seem undue in this article (which is on Ramakrishna and not Kripal), and I think they should be considerably shortened; something along the lines "While certain scholars including X, Y, Z found the argument revelatory and compelling, others did not. The latter attributed Kripal's supposed errors to either misunderstanding of Hinduism or psychological analysis; incorrect translation; colonialism; or to a willful distortion of sources and evidence." (feel free to rephrase and add refs)
3. The quotes, reviews and criticism details can/should be added to either the Jeffrey J. Kripal page or to a new article on Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, which can then be linked from here.

The only slight disagreement I have is that the opening paragraph essentially is promoting Kripal's book and idea, so it may have to include some of the scholarly disagreement in that paragraph

Do you think that merely describing a book is promoting it? Do you have a reason why the most talked-about/debated/notorious scholarly book on Ramakrishna in decades shoud not be described in the Ramakrishna article? If not, I suggest that with this statement, you are merely pushing to make a greater portion of the coverage of the book negative. — goethean ॐ 15:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Scholarly"? Surely you jest. Psychoanalyzing without a degree in psychoanalysis -- never mind that the approach outside clinical contexts has been discredited going on 40 years now -- on materials one can barely read without a dictionary, let alone grasp, is hardly the stuff of scholarship. Except, of course, in the walled garden of woo that is the RISA community in American academia, whence glowing reviews were naturally forthcoming. It's notorious and talked-about precisely because of its shoddiness, exposing an outstanding problem with a certain section of purportedly "mainstream" academia. It's like the rare B-movie that's so bad that it's talk-worthy. rudra (talk) 00:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Back your name-calling up with some citations and maybe they'll begin to be worth the time it took you to type it. — goethean ॐ 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Citations for what? That Kripal lacks credible credentials for psychoanalysis, never having been psychoanalyzed himself, nor having acquired formal training in it? That his Bengali is rudimentary? That the mailing list for the RISA community decided to conceal its academic interactions from non-members after the second controversy on dubious psychoanalyzing? You are clearly not up to speed on the issues. Google is your friend. rudra (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of POV/Undue Weight section

I've taken into account Goethean's comments above, as well as comments by Emyth, Devadaru, Abecedare, and Shruti14 and shortened the section to a more reasonable length - it could be shorter still in my opinion. Rather than removing quotes, I've put them into footnotes as well as I could. Please feel free to comment, remembering that we are all acting in good faith to produce a section that is balanced and neutral. ~ priyanath talk 21:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments (Devadaru):

I'm replying directly to each question, my replies by are in italics and followed by "—pr" ~ priyanath talk 05:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Actually, the book was published by the University of Chicago, not by Kripal. I've now fixed that, and the date (1995) is already included in the award, so I removed the first mention of the year. —pr
2. Rather than saying his theories were controversial, we could say, his "theories provoked controversy". Good idea, and done. I removed the previously specified location of the controversy (India), since it was obviously in the U.S. also, and among academics, and among non-academics - no need to specify all these things. —pr
3. Should the description of Sw. Tyagananda perhaps go in the footnote? Also, he is Hindu chaplain and head of Vedanta Society of Boston, but not, as far as I know, an official spokesman for the Mission. Good question - I included that info because he's not a known scholar, but is someone associated with Ramakrishna Mission which has the authority to respond to Kripal's charges. I think that's important, but what do others think? Was he speaking for Ramakrishna Mission or not? —pr
4. Kripal acknowledged that Ram Chandra Datta's Jivanvrttanta was indeed published by the Mission the same year Kali's child (first ed) came out. So he no longer claims that the Mission is supressing Jivanvrttanta (see [4]). Perhaps rather more important are his allegations of willful mistranslations and omissions in the English translations of the Bengali source texts. If so, the sentence could be recast to reflect that. If you can source that and edit it, that would be helpful. —pr
5. Note 9 has a date 1977. Is this a mistake? Yes, I changed it to 1997. —pr
6. Note 10: is the quote from Ramaswamy? It appears in Tyagananda's piece [5]. Maybe he's quoting Tyagananda. In that case, the quote marks will have to be carefully put to indicate it's a quote within a quote; or else, reference Tyagananda directly. It is Tyagananda, quoted in that book. I've fixed the reference, explaining that it is Tyagananda. —pr
7. There are two note 11s. I only see one - could be wiki problem. Refresh and look again? —pr
8. Another scholar, Alan Roland, questions Kripal's methods and conclusions from a psychoanalytic standpoint; that could also be mentioned, perhaps in the same line with Smith, Bhattacharya, and Lawson. (his paper is at http://alan-roland.sulekha.com/blog/post/2002/11/the-uses-and-misuses-of-psychoanalysis-in-south.htm#up32 (sulekha is currently a Wikipedia blacklisted site, hence the nowiki). Yes, that is yet another notable scholar - I'll look for a better reference. p.s., that is now done also. —pr
9. Would a link stating, "Main article at Kali's Child or something like that, be appropriate? I think so. —pr
10. This rewrite appeals to me as a succinct and acceptable presentation of Kripal's work and the response to it, suitable for this article for the time being; a more in-depth presentation would be appropriate for the article on Jeffrey Kripal. In future, if (as I suspect) Kripal's work is more thoroughly discredited, the section could be reduced or even removed. If however his work should be successfully defended and expanded, then the section naturally could grow. I agree. Even now, at best, it's only speculation about Ramakrishna, and I think that both sides are now well presented. —pr

Devadaru (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Two full paragraphs is still undue weight. The controversy, quote farm and all, should be covered in Kali's Child. All that's needed here is a summary: the principal claims in the book, and a balanced statement of the major facts, charges of bad scholarship etc on the one hand and encomiums from establishment academics on the other. No need to go into details, as that leads to the blizzard of references and footnotes which fools nobody. rudra (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I'll take a stab at a shorter version later today, if I can. ~ priyanath talk 19:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Meanwhile, does Hugh Urban substantiate the mistranslation claim in his review? The sentence could also be read to mean that this is Kripal's claim, not Urban's (i.e Urban is paraphrasing.) And is Urban notable? He shares the exact same name -- Hugh B Urban -- with a retired professor of psychology at Penn State, whereas he is a much younger professor of comparative studies (whatever that is) at Ohio State. This makes finding stuff in Google scholar a bitch.) rudra (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like this young Urban here[6] at Ohio State, whose focus seems to be on sex in religion, by looking at his publication titles ('menstruating goddess', 'sex magic') and a couple of mentions of Kripal. Can't tell if he's notable or not. ~ priyanath talk 22:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the time of the review (1998) he was a brand new Ph.D., from the same school as Kripal (Chicago). Hardly an independent review, then. rudra (talk) 23:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It is the fact that these reviews appeared in important academic religion journals --- a fact that Priyanath has removed from the article --- that established their notability. The fact is that Kail's Child received positive reviews in all of the major academic journals of religion before Sil's review --- the same Sil who had earlier written a much more reductively psychoanalytic book on RK before Kripal had --- appeared in a Calcutta newspaper and created all of the outrage among Indians. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Goethean, I did not remove that fact from the article - I made sure that the religion journals are all noted in the citations in the footnotes, those that are supportive of Kripal and those that pointed out the flaws in his work. There is no need to name every single source in the middle of the article, footnotes and citations are how this is normally done. ~ priyanath talk 02:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Above, you and Rudra were discussing how notable Hugh Urban's opinion is. I responded that it is where his and other scholars' opinions were published (i.e., the main academic religion journals) which showed their opinions to be notable. However, you had moved the titles of the journals from the main text of the article to the footnotes. This move is what resulted in the discussion over Hugh Urban's notability. — goethean ॐ 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the titles were moved because the article is already too long without every title of every religious or psychological journal included in the body of the article. Urban's notability, or lack thereof, doesn't change because of that. ~ priyanath talk 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a one paragraph version below the longer one. Which of these 'authorities' is notable is a question that needs to be answered. Roland certainly seems to be, given how many peer-review articles he has, and his specialty in the issue of westerners applying Freudian methods, which use so much symbolism, on other cultures. The short version gets rid of the quote farm, gratuitous quotes, and other extras that should be in the Kripal article (for example, the AAR award is for the 'Best First Book' of 1995, which is not as notable as it first sounds). Feedback on the short version would be appreciated. ~ priyanath talk 23:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The paragraph above Kali's Child also needs a rewrite, with this gem of a sentence: "Kakar sought a meta-psychological non-pathological explanation that focuses on the pre-Oedipal and the Lacanian Real, and connects Ramakrishna's mystical noesis with creativity." ~ priyanath talk 23:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Kali's Child

Religious scholar Jeffrey Kripal wrote Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna, a psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna, which won the American Academy of Religion's History of Religions Prize for the Best First Book of 1995. Kali's Child's primary thesis is that a great deal of Ramakrishna's mystical experiences were generated by the lingering results of childhood traumas, and sublimated homoerotic and pedophiliac passions. Kripal argues that "Ramakrishna’s mystical experiences...were in actual fact profoundly, provocatively, scandalously erotic." Kripal alleges that the Ramakrishna Mission has suppressed biographical material relating to Ramakrishna's erotic life, including Ram Chandra Datta's Jivanavrttanta, and an 850-page diary by Mahendranath Gupta.

The theories proposed by Kripal provoked controversy among academics in the fields of religion and psychology, who disagreed over Kripal's scholarship, methodology, and conclusions. Narasingha Sil and Swami Tyaganananda (Hindu Chaplain at Harvard University and spokesman for the Ramakrishna Mission) wrote that Kripal's claims of suppressed source material were based on his own willful distortion of the original Bengali writings. Hugh Urban supported Kripal's work with the original Bengali texts, claiming that they had been previously mistranslated and censored by disciples of Ramakrishna. Kripal's credentials to apply Freudian psychoanalysis, and his conclusions, were questioned by Huston Smith, Alan Roland, Somnath Bhattacharya, and Gerald James Lawson. John Hawley, William Radice, and Malcolm McLean found Kripal's analysis and conclusions to be convincing. Kripal responded to criticisms of his book in a new introduction to the second edition of Kali's Child, and in postings to his website, while others continued to question his research in Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America by Krishnan Ramaswamy and Antonio de Nicolas.

Shorter version

Here is a shorter version yet, considering feedback that this entire subject is being given undue weight by being so long, which I agree with. No footnotes yet - they can be added.

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

This version is unacceptable. You have removed the fact that the book was highly acclaimed in academia before it became controversial among Indians. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes. — goethean ॐ 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I also tweaked a bit, but I think this version is getting close. ~ priyanath talk 02:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I favour #3 also. Is it correct to say that the book is a Freudian psychoanalytic study? Or only that the author claims it is such? "…which he calls a Freudian psychoanalytic study of …"? To please supporters, the "Although" could be removed: "Kali's child was well-received among Western academics, but provoked controversy…" (of course, it was not universally well-received. But it received an award. Perhaps safer to stick to facts?) "Kali's Child received a prestigious award from the Academy of Religion, but provoked controversy…"? Devadaru (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Devadaru's point - remove 'Freudian'. And while the book did "receive an award", it wasn't "prestigious" (in fact minor), and it was definitely not well-received among all Western academics. In fact why would 'Western academics' be more notable to mention than 'Indian academics'? Or why even differentiate, since WP is supposed to be neutral? Would Sil, who received his last two degrees in the U.S., and teaches in the U.S., be a 'Western academic'? Too confusing, and not relevant, to make such a distinction. ~ priyanath talk 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)