Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Removal of reference from Encyclopedia Brittanica

User:iddli , you have not given any reasons for removing the reference from Encl. Britannica.-Bharatveer 08:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Bharatveer, Consider this sentence from the EB article: “He immediately renounced his possessions, shaved his head, and fled from his village to Mt. Arunachala to become a hermit and one of India's youngest gurus.”

This description does not fit with any biography of Sri Ramana that I have ever read. The throwing away of his remaining money and the receipt for his ear rings and his sacred thread happened AFTER his arrival in Tiruvannamalai, as did the shaving of his head, not before he left Madurai. Also, he had left his village years earlier, to live with his uncle and attend a school where English was taught. Furthermore, the EB line suggests a sense of intention about becoming a guru. To the best of my knowledge, Sri Ramana did not go to Arunachala to become a guru. He went because he felt called there by his Father – Arunachala. There was no motive beyond that union. He had no aspirations to become a guru. I have not seen a single line written by Sri Ramana, or any devotee of his, that supports the claim that he fled his village to become a guru.

I cannot think of any good reason to link this small inaccurate description of Sri Ramana to the wikipedia article. We already have a link to the far more detailed and carefully researched biography by T. M. P. MAHADEVAN: ttp://www.arunachala-ramana.org/bhgvnram.htm. (Admittedly, we still need to work more on the Enlightenment experience and find sources for this, as suggested by David Godman – but even so, the TMPM bio seems to me to be a very valuable link.) If there is some point made in the EB description that you feel adds value to the wikipedia article, let’s try to find that same point made somewhere else, where it is not embedded in inaccurate details about Sri Ramana, and then include it. Best wishes to you.Iddli 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:DUCK. Seriously he is documented as a Hindu. His philosphy, teachings, etc are all Hindu. Whats the dispute?Bakaman 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You statement itself is inaccurate. Who died and appointed two zealots regarding hinduism (as is apparent from the commnents on their talk pages), at least one a self admitted racist bigot against westerners, and whose knowledge of Sri Ramana is clearly very limited, to hijack this article, and attack the character and scholarship of a leading expert on Sri Ramana, who has lived at the Ashram in India since 1976, and to fill this article with misleading propaganda, obvious errors in Sri Ramana's teaching, and spam from those like Sivananda? Neither of you have provided good evidence to support excluding what a recognized expert has said based on reliable sources, and are obviously not interested in anything but insulting those who have done the research. It's clear from both your comments you aren't the least bit interested in any sort of dialogue and instead want to lecture those with far more study on the subject than you have. There is a place for controversies and less documented assertions, use it instead, don't make the lead a joke. Therefore, I will continue to remove the Sivananda spam, etc. --Dseer 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And who appointed some random "devotee" to cleanse the article of details relating to Hinduism? Accusing people of bigotry is against policy and I will not hesitate to report you if you do not cease with the bs. Sivananda is not spam, he is one of the most respected (more than Ramana Maharishi) Hindu religious figures of the modern era. I see this pattern with every religious guru, devotees claiming that the practice isnt Hindu. If it looks like a Hindu, talks like a Hindu, and quacks like a Hindu, its Hindu. Britannica merely buttresses the assertion.Bakaman 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not purge the article of details related to hinduism, as you well know if you read my edit, in fact, I said Ramana was born a hindu and restored references to hinduism but taking into account what Godman said based on actual research. Bhavateer's version is not based on actual documentation but on second hand opinion. You both are deliberately contradicting expert Godman and substituting articles with proven errors to buttress your own preconcieved ideas, that is OR, while I am simply working with solid sources. Of course you can find related practices in hinduism but also in forms of buddhism, and advaita is only one of many branches of hinduism and even there Godman has outlined many distinctions, thus non-dualism is more correct. I am well aware of Sivananda's reputation and good intent but his bio is in error and is spam when it is used in that manner when there are more accurate sources. The Britannica article is nothing more than a stub like summary that contains too many errors which have been pointed out to no avail. That Bharatveer is a bigot is proven by his own words about westerners, since Godman has lived in India since 1976, and is hardly "christian" and "semitic". I am entitled to infer from the comments on your talk page something about your perspective here. Go ahead and report me for pointing Bharatveer's admitted bigotry. --Dseer 05:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A classic case of "Pot calling the kettle black". User Dseer, stop your personal attacks. Please take a re-look at your own WP edits on articles related to Hinduism.-Bharatveer 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out your own words show you to be a bigot with respect to David Godman and westerners in general. No apology. I have nothing against the Dharma, only those who misuse it, and my edits show that. --Dseer 06:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is expert, Godman or Editors who post factually inaccurate information?

I think we need to prepare for dispute resolution. Author and Scholar David Godman who actually set up the Ashram library and who has lived in India since 1976 is currently the world's most widely respected source for information on Sri Ramana and his teachings. We have totally unrecognized editors with suspect knowledge here claiming based on suspect sources that he is so wrong that we can't even mention what he has said but they feel free to put in erroneous information at will. Editors with no expertise who don't even respond intelligently to the points raised or produce good evidence to the contrary, but only hurl propaganda and insults. We should rely on the best sources, and that includes Godman. --Dseer 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why POV Tag Was Needed and Introduction is Suspect

While awaiting the return of more responsible editors who are not just edit warring and foisting obvious misleading OR and POV editing on this article without collaboration so we can initate dispute resolution and eventually overturn these malicious edits, let me summarize the dispute for readers. Bharatveer's own words reek of anti-western bigotry against the known expert and author David Godman, who came to India because of his interest in Ramana and has lived in India since 1976. Godman is not only a noted expert on Ramana, but has studied about and with a number of jnanis, and has provided well documented research. Bharatveer says, in dismissing him, that Godman "is just another westerner ( read christian) who looks at dharmic traditions through his semitic eyes." There is no way to characterize this as anything other than bigotry. And Bharatveer, despite being shown cases where he is proven wrong, insists on misusing sources and using sources with known factual errors, such as a Britannica stub and Sivananda article, over more accurate sources in support of an agenda. And, he refuses to acknowledge other views or conduct meaningful collaboration. So, for example, despite Ramana's own statement in a source provided next after his citations that Ramana's teaching was not based his readings but his own experience which he only later found to be consistent with traditional Advaita sources, and that he taught a variety of paths and practices based on the needs of those who asked, he insists on wording that states otherwise. He even claims falsely to other editors the issue is that I've been trying to eliminate Hindu references in relation to Ramana, when my proposed edits made to try and find middle ground which he reverted without collaboration prove otherwise. Neither did I attempt to change the hindu guru category. Let the record speak for itself.

My first attempt at a collaborative approach was reverted by Bharatveer as anti-hindu:

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a nondualist Indian Sage of Hindu origin who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. Although born a brahmin and often considered a Hindu guru, he renounced his caste and later declared himself to be atiasrami, unattached to anything in life and beyond all such restrictions [1]. He asserted his primary teaching was the radiant silence said to emanate from him as a result of his Self-abidance. Though his teaching is consistent with and generally associated with Hinduism, the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, Sri Ramana gave his approval to a variety of paths and practices from various religions [2]. Sri Ramana, when asked "What is the fastest way to realise the Self?" would recommend self-enquiry, the practice he is most widely associated with.

After changes by other editors, I then tried to follow another editor's suggestion based on the fact that Ramana was actually Tamil and wrote in Tamil, which was also reverted without collaboration:

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Tamil, Hindu sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in South India. His teaching was primarily based on his own experience of Enlightenment and some traditional scriptures of Advaita (nondual) Vedanta. He recommended self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation.

But Bharatveer rigidly insisted on his own, POV version:

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Hindu Sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. He propounded advaita. His teaching was primarily based on the ancient upanishadic wisdom. He recommended Atma Vichaara or self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation.

His citations for this misleading and badly sourced introduction--(1) an inaccurate online Britannica stub (Britannica has been proven not to be error free), (2) an article which demonstrates that Ramana had no problem with idol worship, (3) an inaccurate, flowery commentary by Sivananda, and (4) an article by the same Godman whose suggestions he rejects to show that Ramana considered Arunachala sacred and a form of God.

Until this dispute can be resolved by editors more interested in actual documentation and an article up to encyclopedic standards rather than religious bias and an agenda, readers should be aware the introduction is not well sourced and is factually inaccurate. --Dseer 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's best not to characterize edits as "malicious". However unsourced, POV edits are not appropriate. If there are sources that show the subject is Tamil and based his teachings on his own experiences, and if there are no sources that show he wasn't Tamil or that he based his work on written texts, then we should certainly go with the sourced assertions. However we should be neutral if there are more than one sourced viewpoints on the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

God bless Will Babeck, please hang around this page more often! Sethie 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Will, appreciate the comments. Ramana was beyond doubt a Tamil, he lived in Tamil Nadu, and Tamil was his primary language. He himself is documented to have said his teachings were based on his own experiences and spiritual awakening at age 16, not a study of Hindu scriptures or Upanishads, which he only read much later, and he had no teacher. Thus, he did not "propound" advaita, he interpreted it and sometimes modified classic doctrines and methods in the light of his own awakening, primarily in response to requests and questions. Not just David Godman, but also no biographer who has studied the subject to any depth, claims otherwise. Indian editors who assert based on logic of ethnic superiority that a noted expert (Godman) is incorrect have not produced quality biographical sources to back up their assertion. Therefore a neutral introduction would read something like this:

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Tamil, Hindu Sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in Tamil Nadu, South India. His teaching was primarily based on his own spiritual experience (Self realization) and his later interpretations of some traditional texts, such as Upanishads and Gitas advocating Advaita (nondual) Vedanta. He recommended self-enquiry as the fastest way to Self realisation.

Until the inaccurate, POV portions are removed from the introduction, the POV tag should not be removed. --Dseer 06:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When Bhagwan Raman Maharshi became a non-Hindu ?

Iddli regards Raman Maharshi as a non-Hindu because "there is also Sri Bhagavan's removal of his sacred thread after he offered himself at his Father's feet at the Arunachaleswara temple". Brahmopnashat asks a jnani (a liberated or Mukta soul) to discard external sacred thread. It does not mean they renounce Hinduism. Did Raman Mararshi renounce Hinduism ? Did he join any other religion or found a new one ? Did he renounce all religions and became an atheist ? It must be pointed out that whatever Raman Maharshi did was perfectly in line with upanishadic teachings and there is no case of calling him a non-Hindu. Court did well to protect his ashram from omnivorous boards, but why some persons are trying to expel Raman Maharshi from Hinduism is not clear. Bharatveer got angry with David Godman because of Godman's narrow attitude towards Hinduism. Most of David Godman's remarks about errors in that article are welcome, excepting his statement : "it is misleading to say that he was a Hindu. His state transcended all categories, including the religion he was born into." I respect Godman's feelings about Raman Maharshi, but his assessment of Hinduism is very narrow minded . Mukta souls do not champion any ism. But it is our duty to put facts as they are. Sanatana Dharma will lose its essence if Mukta souls are expelled from it. Swami Sivananda's comment on Raman Maharshi are perfectly true : "Ramana was a living example of the teaching of the Upanishads. .... A lifelong proof of the Upanishads was what we called Maharshi Ramana. That proof will for ever exist, reassuring us of the Ultimate Reality. ..... Dogmas and religious prejudices he cared not for! For he was far above those mundane limitations. With him lived orthodox Brahmin priests, Moslems and Christians and the so-called Indian untouchables. They were all alike to him." Gita also says the same thing about attitude of Mukta souls towards brahmins and Chandalas. Swami Sivanand was a sadhu like Raman Maharishi, and he had a first hand knowledge of Raman Maharishi ; why Swami Sivanand's assessment of Raman Maharishi cannot be quoted is not clear . Dseer and Iddli want to dissociate the Upanishadic teachings from those of Raman Maharshi, but in this attempt they are doing injustice to Raman Maharishi who was an upanishadic sage in true sense of the term. Those who want to declare Raman Maharishi a non-Hindu are trying to deprive Hinduism of its soul which is Upanishadic self-knowledge. Dseer should implement his "neutral" words expressed above ("a Tamil, Hindu Sage") in the lead. -VJha 09:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Vinay Jha. Your points about Sri Ramana and Hinduism make perfect sense to me. Godman's comments about Sri Ramana "transcending all categories" etc also seem valid to me, which is why I originally wanted the word Hindu moved down further in the article rather than being in the first line. It was never my intent to "declare Ramana Maharshi a non-Hindu" or to take a narrow view of Hinduism ... I was hoping to somehow "capture his essence" in that first line, and his essence seemed to go beyond Hinduism. However, I have put the word Hindu back in the first line because I find your defense of it compelling, and also because I feel my removal of it resulted in discord that is not moving us closer to our goal of making this article really superb. Thanks for your help. (Iddli 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

I appreciate that you are willing to talk about this, so at least we can get somewhere even if Bharatveer declines. Let's be clear first about which editor is advocating what and in what context, as you seem to be confusing me with others. Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) recognizes the inherent result of its own practice being transcendance of religious limitations as a matter of dharma. I am not an editor who advocates purging references to Sri Ramana being a Hindu, and the history of my edits supports that. To be clear, the reason why "Tamil, Hindu" was not yet in the introduction already was that I did add it, but the same phrase was then purged by Bharatveer in the edit wars, so I left it on the Talk page to illustrate the dispute.

To start, what Godman said should be taken as a whole and in context, not parsed. As he said himself it was a nit-picking (in case there is anyone unclear as to the meaning of that term, it is defined by a dictionary as meaning "too much minor, overly particular criticism") point, and if something like that angers Bharatveer enough to provoke such inappropriate racial and religious comments, whose problem is that? What Godman said in totality on the issue was: "And now a couple of nit-picking points...I would also say that it is misleading to say that he was a Hindu. His state transcended all categories, including the religion he was born into. For what it is worth, there was a court case in the 1950s and 60s (cases drag on for years here) over the ownership of Ramanasramam. Bhagavan's family were contesting an attempt by the Hindu Endowment Board to take over the ashram. In his ruling the judge declared that since Bhagavan was 'atiasrami' he had transcended all religions. This meant that The Hindu Endowment Board could not take over his ashram since they only had the authority to take over Hindu establishments." In other words, Godman was making a minor point and a judgement exists supporting that point in a legalistic sense, so he is not just coming from a "narrow view" of Hinduism. The dilemma is simply how to express this kind of nuance in the context of defining Sri Ramana as a Hindu, and I think amplifying and clarifying language can accomplish that while retaining the reality that his transcendant "atiasrami" state is recognized by Hinduism and is consistent with it.

I repeat once more that my first edit in response to Godman's comments and Bharatveer's radical changes containing factual errors was this: "Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a nondualist Indian Sage of Hindu origin who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. Although born a brahmin and often considered a Hindu guru, he renounced his caste and later declared himself to be atiasrami, unattached to anything in life and beyond all such restrictions [1]. He asserted his primary teaching was the radiant silence said to emanate from him as a result of his Self-abidance. Though his teaching is consistent with and generally associated with Hinduism, the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, Sri Ramana gave his approval to a variety of paths and practices from various religions [2]. Sri Ramana, when asked "What is the fastest way to realise the Self?" would recommend self-enquiry, the practice he is most widely associated with." In this first, futile attempt to collaborate with Bharatveer, I deliberately restored the term Hindu removed by another editor to the introduction while qualifying and elaborating on the reasons behind Godman's concerns. I do not think Godman's concern was as much with the term Hindu as with the lack of qualifying and elaborating language on the term by itself since he was a self-declared atiasrami. Nowhere did I deny Sri Ramana was a Hindu or say Sri Ramana "renounced" Hinduism, and the use of the qualifying term non-dualist is consistent with modern practice since many Hindus are not non-dualists and Sri Ramana considered the Buddha a Sage also even though technically he renounced Hinduism, and because Sri Ramana did not advocate everyone changing religions or adopting practices from only one religion, but rather realizing the highest import of all religions which the Mukta embodies. Yet, not only did Bharatveer unilaterally and completely reject this, but he even rejected without discussion my final attempt: "Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Tamil, Hindu sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in South India. His teaching was primarily based on his own experience of Enlightenment and some traditional scriptures of Advaita (nondual) Vedanta. He recommended self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation." All the while falsely claiming that I was actively trying to purge references to Sri Ramana being Hindu despite proof from my edits to the contrary, and refusing to seriously collaborate.

Meanwhile, the problems with Bharatveer's version are basic: "Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Hindu Sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. He propounded advaita. His teaching was primarily based on the ancient upanishadic wisdom. He recommended Atma Vichaara or self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation." In fact, Sri Ramana is both a Tamil and a Hindu, not just a Hindu, as I have said. We do not need an inaccurate source to prove something not really in dispute, that Sri Ramana was in a conventional sense a Hindu since Hinduism includes the ability within itself to transcend all such limitations via Mukta. And to claim that Sri Ramana "propounded" Advaita, when propound means "to offer for discussion or consideration", ignores the documented fact that Ramana most often taught silently, and spoke from his own experiences not from a specific philosophical school. To claim that "His teaching was primarily based on the ancient upanishadic wisdom" is incorrect, rather it was based on his own Mukti and instead of being based on it rather illustrates the the ancient upanishadic wisdom. Furthermore, there is a pattern of repetitively neither using the best available sources with the least errors, nor accurately represents what the source actually states in context. Let's not just focus on the false issue of my alleged attempts to eliminate Hinduism, let's focus on the actual choices editors have made and the details of the actual edits. --Dseer 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Bharatveer's most recent edit to wikilink Hindu, and have reworked introduction to (hopefully) resolve major areas of dispute and end the POV and "Anti-Hindu" issue while remaining factual. Have wikilinked other applicable terms, and applied appropriate Hindu terms that apply, such as Moksha, Jnani, Jivanmukta, etc., have amplified on Sri Ramana's relationship with Hinduism and that his atiasrami stage of life although beyond all restrictions is recognized in the Hindu Sastras, and have documented that his teaching included but was broader than simply Advaita, including approval of many paths and practices. I also urge those making allegations against David Godman to email him directly, which I think may show there is a serious misunderstanding of his intent. --Dseer 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dseer, your changes to the introductory paragraph are excellent. This seems by far the best version! Thanks for improving it so much. (Iddli 04:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

It is nice to see all of you working as a team. That is what Maharshi would have liked. I do not misunderstand Godman, I appreciate him. I only insist that words have tremendous power, good as well as bad, and even if your intentions are good you may cause damage by a slight inappropriate use of words. I want to clarify two points made by Dseer : (1) Dseer says "Hinduism (Sanātana Dharma) recognizes the inherent result of its own practice being transcendance of religious limitations as a matter of dharma." This statement applies to only the ati-āshrami sanyāsis and not to grihasthas who make up more than 99.9 % of Hindus. (2) Dseer says "To claim that "His teaching was primarily based on the ancient upanishadic wisdom" is incorrect." I differ. Upanishadic practice is eternal and unwritten. I am myself an ati-āshrami ( a lifelong brahmachāri, living in solitude), but I do not mix with persons belonging to all religions, I avoid mixing with persons belonging to all religions. I did not have the fortune to meet the Maharshi, but I have met many Mukta souls. They talk without words. Strange ? I will not like to speak on this topic. Upanishad also means mystery. (3)I will be glad if Dseer's differences with Bakasuprman are amicably resolved. It takes two to start a fight. But only one party is enough to stop it. Tolerance is the other name of Hinduism. This page is not on my watch list, and if someone wants to communicate his reactions to me, he should briefly notify me on my talk page. -VJha ^Talk 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the translation correct?

In the article Sri Ramana Maharshi's mother's tomb/samadhi, Matrubhuteswara, is translated as "Mother who was easwara". Now, there are many words in Sanskrit and Hindi which use the term Ishwara (God) in compound words in the form of Eswara. Might the end of Matrubhuteswara point to Ishwara? --Tellervo 11:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Iswara and eashwara/eshwara refer to the same thing, as you suggest. Some of the terms used here have multiple spellings translated into common english which may confuse the reader. Perhaps "Mother who was easwara (Iswara)" would be more helpful.--Dseer 17:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, she died as an enlightened being. She had become one with Ishwara. I will go and change the translation in the text. --Tellervo 18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am at present perusing David Godman's "The Power of the Presence" vol.I. There I have found helpful facts about the meaning of "Matrubuthesvara" as well as to the spelling of the name of Bhagavan's mother. N.R. Krishnamurti Aiyer writes, Ramana Maharshi's mother's tomb was named "Matrubhuteswara" [Siva (God) in the form of a mother] because a Siva lingam was put on its top. Siva lingams, which abounds in Indian temples, are always altar's of Siva worship.

Ramana Maharshi's mother's name was Azhagammal. And as a last topic, Kavyakantha Ganapati Muni. Yes the names are in this order, but the honorific Sri is always put first.--Tellervo 15:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC) I am doubtful about where Sri is put.

Maybe it has to do with the total lack of order in things/books/whatever Indian.--Tellervo 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)Tellervo 16:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tellervo, These are not actually typos ... there is more than one correct way to spell some of these words. Matrubuthesvara and Mathrubuthesvara are both correct, and you will find both in the literature of Sri Ramanasramam. Likewise, "Alagammal" is not incorrect (and nor is the version you put in place of this). Please see http://sriramanamaharshi.org/mother.html -- this is the official website's page on Sri Ramana's Mother, and "Alagammal" is used there.

On the other hand, the "Sri" must come after "Bhagavan" in Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi ... there are not two correct versions of this. (Though "Sri Bhagavan" is correct. :-)) (Iddli 22:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

Tellervo, please stop correcting typos which are not typos, without discussion. Patience is limited. The spellings in the sources used need to be retained for clarity to the reader, although alternates can be added if you want. Differences between spellings across regions of India are not sufficent reason to make these changes. As for Sri Bhagavan, that is not found in the primary sources, the title is Bhagavan Sri. More changes of this type that do not take the above into account and which avoid discussion will be summarily reverted. --Dseer 05:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see, why you are so upset by what I consider some small changes in spelling of some words. I have openly discussed the spellings on this page, just read above! I have not yet found a language, where there are different, mutually exclusive spellings of a word that are both correct. You two do not seem to agree even among yourselves about whether it is correct to write Sri Bhagavan or Bhagavan Sri! You have drifted far from the principle of courteous cooperation, on which work in Wikipedia ought to be based. I just tried to be helpful and cooperate. Your nerves are truly frayed! I will keep away from this site.--Tellervo 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Tellervo 05:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course there are different "correct" spellings, for example, Siva or Shiva, in English, both of which can be sourced. Use the one in the source but include other options if it is important enough, that is all that is asked. And be more careful in your research, for example, the word you selected for Benares is not even the most common and merely referred to another article. Sri Bhagavan is simply not correct, other editors agree, since Bhagavan (God) goes before honorific Sri. Sorry you feel that way. --Dseer 01:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This source should resolve the spelling issue once and for all, confirming what I've said: [1].--Dseer 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many quotes

This is an encyclopedia article. Can we just state the facts and remove the extra chatter? --1000Faces (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Feel free to summarize any quotes... I may take a peak and some myself. Hohohahaha (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Action plan: spruce up Ramana Maharshi article

The article has had a momentous accretion of information! I would be working on creating separate articles to keep the Ramana Maharshi article smaller.

1. Create separate articles for longer sections
2. Remove weasel words and introduce fact based approach and avoid regional over tones
--Naresh (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Help Welcome in editing this entry?

For some reason, I've been asked by a few people familiar with the problems on this Ramana Maharshi Wikipedia page to see if I can help improve it. Generally, people say it's a mess, but on reading it I don't think it's quite so bad, though the general concept and organization needs a lot of work. I'm no expert on either Ramana or Hinduism, but I do have a long background in both, and some decent writing skills. I can see a number of problems with the current text, and think it's possible to do a very extensive re-write that should improve the situation.

In general, I'm not dogmatic and I have no particular agenda except to create a more useful introduction to Ramana's life and teachings. I've followed the discussion here about characterizing Ramana as a Hindu, and I think it's self evident that he is, regardless of his personal eccentricities. Trying to introduce people to the concept of "atiashrami" in the opening paragraphs of a basic article like this is unnecessary and misleading. It belongs down below in a discussion of his ashram life (or possibly in a section dealing with his relationship to traditional Hindu orthodoxies). Likewise, characterizing him as a "non-dualist" is also misleading, since "Advaitic sage" means the same thing, but preserves the essential Hindu background of his Self-Realization. It sounds like a backdoor attempt to make him into a secular western non-dualist, which simply wasn't the case, though his teachings and followers certainly did help inspire that movement after his death.

I don't mind at all bowing to the needs and desires of the Indians here who are trying to preserve the essentially Hindu nature of Ramana's life and work, as long as they respect the clearly universal nature of Ramana's essential teachings (and even of Advaita Vedanta itself). Likewise, I think it's important to understand that a great many readers of this entry will be westerners who need to understand Ramana in terms that they can relate to, and who need to be made aware that Ramana himself did not see his teachings as confined to a Hindu perspective.

Anyway, I'd appreciate a little feedback if possible, and welcome any suggestions. I don't see evidence of much discussion about this article of late, and not much sign that things are going to change soon. So I will try to work on my own over the next few weeks to see what I can come up with. Before editing/posting, I'd like to get some feedback from interested parties. Is there a way to do that? I've never edited a Wikipedia article before.

Thanks,

Conradg1207 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Conradg

Dear Conradg1207, I, for one, would love to work together with you to improve the article in exactly the ways you mention. Welcome!! (Iddli (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

Synonyms?

While it is true that Sri Ramana's relative is recorded as saying, "Arunachala is Tiruvannamalai" during that famous conversation when Sri Ramana learned Arunachala was an actual place he could travel to, Arunachala and Tiruvannamalai are not synonyms. Arunachala is the sacred mountain, and Tiru is the town. They are not used interchangeably. No one would say, "I am going into Arunachala to buy some vegetables," and nor would anyone say say, "I am doing pradakshina of Tiruvannamalai" (unless they really were walking all the way around the town for some reason!) Also, the phrase "after attaining spiritual awakening" is not something someone would say in English. Changing random phrases like this so they sound like awkward translations from another language is not helping the quality of the article which 1000Faces is doing an admirable job of cleaning up. (Iddli (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Wrong ISBN Number

The ISBN given against the book The Power of the Presence - Part 2 is wrong. Should be ISBN 0-9711371-0-2. --Ramprax (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the reversion of my recent edit, in which I wrote that Sri Ramana's guru was/is Arunachala

Can there be any doubt that Sri Ramana had a guru, and that that guru was Arunachala?

Please consider these verses, written by Sri Ramana:

19. Shine as my Guru, making me free from faults and worthy of Thy Grace, Oh Arunachala!

44. `Look within, ever seeking the Self with the inner eye, then will (it) be found.' Thus didst Thou direct me, beloved Arunachala!

45. (c) Seeking Thee in the Infinite Self I regained my own (Self), Oh Arunachala!

47. (b) I, by Thy Grace, am sunk in Thy Self, wherein merge only those divested of their minds and thus made pure, Oh Arunachala!

48. When I took shelter under Thee as my One God, Thou didst destroy me altogether, Oh Arunachala!

90. I spoke thus to Thee, because Thou art my Lord; be not offended but come and give me happiness, Oh Arunachala!

(Aksharamanamalai)

O Arunachala! In Thee the picture of the universe is formed, has its stay, and is dissolved; this is the sublime Truth. Thou art the Inner Self, who dancest in the Heart as ‘I’. ‘Heart’ is Thy name, O Lord!

(Arunachala Pancharatna)

I was born at holy Tiruchuzhi, the seat of Bhoominatheswara, renowned in the world, to the virtuous Sundara and his faithful wife Sundari. In order that Siva, the Absolute Consciousness, might shine forth and the Self flourish and that I might be rescued from the misery of the world and the snares of the despicable senses, the Lord of the Red Hill (Arunachala) raised me to His state.

(Arunachala Navamanimalai)

(Iddli (talk) 07:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

You're talking about a mountain, right? — goethean ॐ 17:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Goethean, the mountain Arunachala, considered by Sri Ramana to be Lord Shiva. (Iddli (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

There is no question that Ramana considered Arunachala to be his Guru. The question is, how do we present that to the reader? I say start writing it into the article and if it gets big, give it it's own section. Hohohahaha (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Simon D M has found an easy solution -- removing the "Guru" line from the template. For me, this is a good resolution. I can see that putting Arunachala there might be a bit confusing to someone unfamiliar with Sri Ramana's life and teachings, yet to put "None" was inaccurate. Including mention in the article that Sri Ramana considered Arunachala to be his Guru (with some explanation), as suggested by editor Hohohahaha, also sounds good. (Iddli (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

FWIW, I also agree with removing the Guru field. --1000Faces (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning External Links

I removed the link to the Romanian site because the wikipedia policy on foreign language links states:

Links to English language content are strongly preferred in the English-language Wikipedia. It may be appropriate to have a link to a non-English-language site, such as when an official site is unavailable in English; or when the link is to the subject's text in its original language; or when the site contains visual aids such as maps, diagrams, or tables. Per the guideline on non-English-language sites.

Googling Ramana Maharshi Romania takes one right to the Romanian site, so I do not feel there is any pressing need to break the wikipedia guidelines and include it here.

Also, the editor who re-added it asked why there was a warning not to add more links (except through the Open Directory Project) without discussing it first on the talk page. I believe this warning was added by editor TheRingess more than a year ago because links which did not meet wikipedia's guidelines were often being added to this article. (Iddli (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Why the Repeated Removal of Richard Hittleman?

I see that twice a certain editor has removed the referenced and relevant listing of Richard Hittleman from the 'notable followers of Ramana Maharshi' section. I don't know why this has been done. I can see no justifiable reason for it. Hittleman taught Maharshi's 'who am I' meditation technique in his books, classes and TV series, frequently spoke of Ramana's teachings, and was in fact a personal student of Maharshi's. To this extent he is clearly relevant to the section in question (he is certainly notable - as the first person to bring Yoga/ Advaita Vedanta ideas and practices to a mass audience on a regular basis through the medium of TV ). So I think he should be included in the list - and I have restored him accordingly. Anoot7 (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In case it is thought that not enough information is given about Richard Hittleman, I shall add a couple of further lines. I think it is still relevant. Anoot7 (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Anoot, I beg to disagree. There are many hundreds of self proclaimed followers of Bhagawan who lecture, conduct classes, make TV programs (in the west) and so on. There are probably a few dozen in Tiruvannamalai alone at any given time. This does not mean they are real followers, let alone notable followers. We need some basic criteria here. UG Krishnamurti is another who does not belong here. In fact as far as I know he cannot be considered a follower of Advaita or even Hinduism in general and he certainly did not believe in any Self that Bhagawan always talked about. These inclusions have been made by enthusiastic and sincere editors no doubt. But they simply don't belong in this section. However, I will be happy to be proven wrong about these two individuals. Bo.talks (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources are key. Find a source of someone calling UGK a follower of RM, then add the source to the article. That said, UGK is notable and his meeting with RM is arguably appropriate to the aritcle. — goethean ॐ 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Which is why I moved the UGK content to another section instead of removing it. And I don't expect a UGK reference claiming he was a follower of anything or anybody; he raved that he was against such things. Bo.talks (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Life magazine article

A 12-page article about Maharshi in Life Magazine was the first introduction for many in America to him.[2] This is significant. __meco (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The article as it stands is entirely pro-Maharshi. We need two or three sources at least that are more objective.andycjp (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake Andy. I've been aware of Ramana Maharshi for decades, and I've just not come across this negative you are so keen on documenting. Have you got any reason at all for demanding shit, or did you just make the idea up off the top of your head? Go and find the shit yourself if you believe it is there. In the meantime, I've removed your tag. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems Storr and Kramer have the kind of stuff we need. Please don`t revert unless you have read both.andycjp (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

removing Cafe PHOTO

i cannot see the value of posting this cafe table Photo next to the Bibliography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MaharshiKaffeeklatsch.JPG

How about simply removing it ? please go ahead to do so, as i will probably forget.

LovingKindness, b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.46.152 (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

File:"Ramana Maharishi with Kavyakanta Ganapathi Muni.jpg".jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:"Ramana Maharishi with Kavyakanta Ganapathi Muni.jpg".jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:"Ramana Maharishi with Kavyakanta Ganapathi Muni.jpg".jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tamil or Telugu

According to User:125.22.97.64, Ramana Mharshi was born into a Telugu family diff. No source has been given. According to Arthur Osborne, "he later picked up Sanskrit, Telugu and Malayalam" [3]. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth date

The birth date of 9th January 1879 appears to be an error; it is usually given as 30th December 1879, at 1 a.m. LMT. And that is the date on which Western devotees celebrate it.125.239.247.225 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to add the following information regarding Sri Maharshi's birth chart as per Vedic astrology

=> On examining Sri Ramana Maharshi's life events, Vedic Astrology provides a rectified time of birth (TOB) as 12:19am, which indicates a Virgo Ascendant with Most Effective Point(MEP) at 18deg 37min in the Hasta naksatra and with the natal Moon in the janmanaksatra Purarvasu". Source:"Sri Ramana Maharshi's Moksha" by Sri Sankara Bhagavadpada ISBN 978-81-88479-40-5

Appreciate the feedback from regular contributors who are maintaining this article, before I proceed to to include this information in the article.

Prodigyhk (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not at all familiair with Vedic astrology, or the relevance of it in Indian context, so I can't judge that part. But if it's relevant, you might add it in a note, I guess. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Prodigyhk, If you are going to add in these Vedic Astrology details, would it make sense to say something of the significance of this? I suspect that most readers will not know what to make of the information just on its own. Does your source comment on the significance? For example, I when the father of one of Ramana Maharshi's devotees (Annamalai Swami, who realised the Self under the guidance of Ramana Maharshi) consulted an astrologer when his son was born, the conclusion was arrived at that the baby was destined to become a Hindu monk. The father was absolutely determined to thwart this destiny and spent years trying to ensure it did not happen ... to no avail. Were there any such indications in Ramana's birth chart? Iddli (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Joshua, will proceed to add the details. This will help other Vedic astrologers in the study of the great Masters and understanding of the divine play.

Dear Iddli, the book referred "Sri Ramana Maharshi's Moksha", goes into very detailed analysis of the birth chart of Sri Ramana Maharshi and the significant gift of Moksha from the divine seen in Sri Maharshi's life. I shall work on compiling the information. This I will first post in the Talk page. If the regular contributors are satisfied, we can then make it available in the main article.

Prodigyhk (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Prodigyhk. Could you also please add a few lines on what it means, so that it's clear for readers what the significance is? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Journey to Tiruvannamalai

I think that the section on "Journey to Tiruvannamalai" could be shortened to the following text:

He decided to leave his home and go to Arunachala. Venkataraman took out an atlas, calculated the cost of his journey, took three rupees and left the remaining two with a note which read:

I have set out in quest of my Father in accordance with his command. This (meaning his person) has only embarked on a virtuous enterprise. Therefore, no one need grieve over this act. And no money need be spent in search of this. Your college fee has not been paid. Herewith rupees two.

On the morning of September 1, 1896, Venkataraman boarded the train and traveled the remaining distance.

As it is now, the section contains a lot of detail. Compare it to the section on the Ramanashram-years, which covers 28 years and saw the further growing of his fame, yet is shorter. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

JJ, that does make sense to shorten it though "remaining distance" may need to be changed a bit. Iddli (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that one. It could be read as a nice little punch: the remaining distance to his final destiny. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Stillness - samadhi

I'm not sure about changing "samadhi" into "stillness". I do see the quality of the word "stillness", but in an Indian context it was exactly the recognition of "samadhi", and all the meanings and interpretations attached to "samadhi", which gave him authority. Is there a possibility to use both words? Greetings, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's put both. I agree with all you've said. I'd like the article to make sense to readers who know no Indian terms and may not be ready to click on links and learn those terms -- but also have the richness of those terms where they really do add more depth. Iddli (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Context, Zimmer and Jung

I don't agree that Zimmer and Jung "did not add any useful information". They were acquainted with Ramana's teachings when he was relatively quite unknown in Europe, let alone the USA, and helped in spreading his fame, but did not elevate him to the unique status he has gotten over the decades since then. They point out that Ramana, or the devotion of his devotees, existed within a pre-given context. I think it's good to mention such notions; it provides a context to the Indian veneration for Ramana, showing that it had not only to do with his personality or insights, but also with the role a guru has in India, being seen as an embodiment of the Absolute. And Jung's quote on "the whitest spot" is often quoted - without the first sentence. It is a well-known quote, which makes it significant, especially given the mutulated way it is often used. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Coincidently, reading Nakamura's "A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy", I came across this personal note, at the very end of part two:

My visit to Tiruvannamalai on january 21, 1960 was also a very impressive one. When I was in America, Professor Frederic Spiegelberg and others had told me of their spiritual experience at the sage's ashram. The book "Der Weg zur Selbsterkenntnis" by the late Heinrich Zimmer was, so to speak, a revelation to me. (Nakamura (2004), Early Vedanta, part two, p.783)

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Proper Sourcing

The article has become liberally sprinkled with references to a self-published biography by Eberts which I think was originally written in German. As I understand it, self-published books do not qualify as legitimate sources on wikipedia. Quite apart from this technicality, I see major problems with the Ramana Maharshi article relying far too heavily on this source. The author has taken a number of published biographies and created a new biography. Because Eberts' mother tongue is not Tamil (or any other Indian language) or English, it appears that aspects of the original biographies were translated into German and then back into English. It is certainly an admirable work to make Ramana's story more accessible to German-speakers ... but we should, wherever possible, rely on published biographies and other books that have not lost some meaning by going through too many translations. I'd like to see the article reworked in this way. For example, David Godman is one of the world's leading authorities on Ramana and there are 14 books of his we can rely on, not to mention the biographies of Arthur Osborne. etc. We have lots of sources we can rely upon that meet wikipedia's standards. Iddli (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're correct on Ebert being self-published. It happens to be the one biography I've got available on my book-shelves, which is the reason why I refer to it so often. That being said, I have to notice that there are hardly any independent sources on ramana Maharshi. Most on him is written by devotees, and published either by the Ramanashram or on websites. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I have more than 50 books about Ramana Maharshi on my shelves and will do my best to help with improving the sourcing of the article. While it is true that many of the books were published by Sri Ramanasramam, by no means all of them were. It does tend to be devotees who write about Ramana Maharshi (I would include Ebert in that category) ... it appears that even great skeptics who came to expose him were deeply affected and their skepticism melted away without Ramana even opening his mouth -- so we do have a bit of an unusual situation here, with regard to writings about him. All we can do is try to find the most accurate information and the best sources from all that we have. 108.78.249.80 (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Book

Ebert p.147: "If specific questions arose, he would take one of the many books from the bookshelf beside his couch and read the appropriate passage from it or give it to the questiner to read". Strictly speaking, "owned" is interpretation on my part, but simply removing sourced info isn't accurate too. Never mind, let's leave it this way now. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Hi 108.78.249.80. I see your point about making the lead more readable, yet I'm not fully convinced. The lead has become longer, with less references, and more "hagiographic". Terms like "an outer spiritual radiance" have meaning in a specific context, but can be 'irritating' to others. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Nevertheless, the good intention is clear. FYI: I did not read 50 books on Ramana Maharshi, but I like him. I've just grown more sceptical ove the years. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That was just me (Iddli) thinking I was signed in but not signed in when I did those 2 edits ... I will make the lead less hagiographic yet still try to preserve the clarity. Working in words like sannyasin and sadhu and swami and moksha and liberation and then attempting to define these words is too cumbersome an opening. No one should have to struggle through the lead. It is not so much a matter of reducing word count (when I said sticking to key points) -- it is that some things do not need to be in the lead. The main thing about Ramana is his extraordinary realisation at such a young age, and his willingness to help others while remaining completely humble. Another very important thing which I think needs to be made clearer is that some devotees actually did realise the Self through some combination of being in his company and doing the practice he gave them. This is so rare that I think it deserves more emphasis in the article. Iddli (talk) 05:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Such things happen. Welcome again anyway. Regarding devotees who gained insight, could you add some to the article? Would be nice; I agree that it looks like he only had devotees (and one enlightened devotee who's been critisised for sending 'half-awakened' students on teaching-missions). Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Jung-quote

I've reverted the reworking of the Jung-quote on "the whitest spot". The Dutch translation says:

Hij is "echt", en daar bovenuit bovendien een "fenomeen", dat, vanuit Europees standpunt bezien, een geheel eigen karakter bezit. Maar in India is hij het witste punt op een wit vlak (waarbij men de wijsheid daarvan om deze reden op de voorgrond plaatst, dat er evenzeer zwarte vlekken te vinden zijn. (p.227)

In translation:

He is "real", and above that also a "phenomenon" that, from a European point of view, has its own character. But in India he is the whitest point on a white surface (in which the wisdom of this is placed in the foreground, because also black spots can be found. (Google translate + correction by me)

Note the omission of the word "but", and the relativising sentence following "the whitest spot". See also J. Glenn Friesen, JUNG, RAMANA MAHARSHI AND EASTERN MEDITATION.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I was directly quoting from Jung. Maybe Jung also said what is quoted on p 227 of that book -- but in another context he said something quite different. I will let that p 227 quote stand -- but there is no reason to delete the quote I added (and am re-adding). The Jung paragraph I am looking at says, "Sri Ramana is a true son of the Indian earth. He is genuine and, in addition to that, something quite phenomenal. In India, he is the whitest spot in a white space." Please do not delete this quote as it conveys quite a different meaning from your quote, and is properly sourced. (It is actually the forward from The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi (Shambhala) . At the end of the 4 page Foreword by Jung, the book states that this Foreword was originally published as the Foreword to Zimmer's Der Weg zum Selbst. The translator is RFC Hull. Iddli (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind the "true son" etc., but the quote in "The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" is not the same as the quote in "De weg tot het Zelf". As far as I know, the original text was edited, to make it more favourable for Ramana Maharshi. Also, you did not give "The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" as source, but "Der Weg". When you do that, you have to quote correctly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected the quotations and citations. As it is now, it shows very clearly some hagiographic tendencies, and the rewriting of original material by later publishers. Sources should be mentioned, and quoted correctly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

JJ, I began to dig deeper and read everything I could find about Jung’s contradictory statements about Ramana ... something about them just did not quite make sense. I found a 2 part article in The Mountain Path (2010) called Cold Feet which is “An interpretation of Carl Jung’s behaviour in India and his subsequent written explanations as to why he did not visit Sri Ramanasramam”. Here are some excerpts:

During his travels in India Jung could not but be aware of Sri Ramana, particularly during his stay in nearby Madras. And he could not avoid making a decision whether to see Sri Ramana even if it meant deliberately not addressing the opportunity. Jung had borrowed his fundamental idea of ‘the Self’ from the east and especially the Upanishads, of which Sri Ramana was a living exemplar. Jung was at the time not only one of the world’s most influential psychiatrists but also a leading intellectual light in bringing the wisdom of the East to Europe, and his proposed interaction with or comments on Sri Ramana are still important today.
His comments about Sri Ramana can probably be best understood by reflecting on the origins of Jung’s mental state which sheds new light on why he didn’t visit Sri Ramana. With this new insight we will argue that the actual reason for Jung not visiting Sri Ramana is quite different from the reasons he gave at the time.
In his essay, The Holy Men of India, Jung gave a confusing picture of Sri Ramana, which also contains a degree of ambivalence. My research has led to the hypothesis that Jung was not just hesitant towards Sri Ramana but actually duplicitous. If we learn more about the people who knew Jung and his own later writing this should enable us to penetrate Jung’s defences and reveal the truth about why he deliberately avoided Sri Ramana and then tried to conceal it. One apparent obstacle to a right understanding is that Jung, who was without any doubt an extraordinarily intelligent man, suffered from prolonged mental illness. At first it seems difficult to understand him but this is really only because he concealed so very much about himself in the Holy Men of India and in his autobiography. However, Jung left a trail of evidence in his other later correspondence.
Jung’s behaviour as a prophetic guru would have made it very difficult if not impossible for him to meet Sri Ramana, who as a genuine guru would have called into question, albeit in silence, Jung’s claim to be someone with the special abilities of an authentic guru.
In the early days of psychology, Jung stated that he wasn’t the sort of man to support anything he hadn’t discovered himself. In his autobiography this is the fundamental reason for him taking a stand against the ‘holy men’ in India. “I studiously avoided all so-called ‘holy men’. I did so because I had to make do with my own truth, not accept from others what I could not attain on my own. I would have felt it as a theft had I attempted to accept their truth for myself.”

Jung was very serious about deliberately avoiding the ‘holy men’ especially one who may jeopardise his life’s work. He seemed closed to anyone else’s vision of the truth. This is in keeping with Anthony Storr‘s assessment of him being a guru. One could postulate that Jung was not only arrogant and rigid about truth but also about what he claimed to actually know…
There is compelling evidence shown in Part One, which shows there were several powerful forces influencing Jung at that time of his visit to India which discouraged him from visiting Sri Ramana and explained his apparent ambivalence in The Holy Men of India. Jung’s understanding of the Self was only from an intellectual stance not from one of experiencing the atman ‘the Self’ through existence-consciousness-bliss, (Sat Chit Ananda). Jung borrowed ideas from the East about the atman ‘the Self’ but when he was faced with the task of meeting Sri Ramana, the person known and honoured as an authentic guru, he studiously avoided meeting him.
He describes Sri Ramana being absorbed in ‘the Self’ but admits to not understanding Sri Ramana’s Self-realisation or what he actually did do. He also admits that his field of psychology is not competent in understanding the Eastern insight of the atman ‘the self’. This begs the question, ‘Why exactly is Jung who is a psychologist being so critical?’ When we look at his later correspondence, it proves that Jung concealed the truth about why he didn’t meet Sri Ramana and why his description of Ramana vacillated in the Holy Men of India.
In later correspondence, Jung is for the first time, actually honest and confesses that he was clearly aware of the profound danger he would be in if he delved further into the East. It is only logical to extrapolate on this that the person who represented the gravest risk to Jung of losing his roots again, was the person he wrote the most about in the East and that was Sri Ramana.”

Back to my comments … If we are going to include Jung’s view of Ramana in the article, we need to present it accurately. It is too complex a topic to toss out a short puzzling quote or two or three. I think a better place to handle all this would be in the Jung Wikipedia article rather then the Ramana one (as it mainly about Jung and his fear of another psychotic episode, etc) and not really about Ramana … but if you feel strongly that it needs to be in the Ramana article, then we need to present Jung’s ambivalence and confusion in context. Iddli (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

We could say something in the Ramana article like, "Jung expressed considerable ambivalence about Ramana and avoided visiting him" and link this line to the Jung article and then go into it in depth over there. I see that Jung's spirituality is covered very fleetingly in the Jung article. Iddli (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Good research! My compliments. I think my problem is the misquotation of "the whitest spot". Without the "but", the statement is totally opposite from Jung's intention. Maybe "the whitest spot" shouldn't be mentioned at all. But regarding pointing to the "context" of Ramana, I think that deserves mentioning. There's more to him than the story of his enlightenment and the attraction of his devotees. for indians, Ramana was not just Ramana, but also the eombodiemnt of the Absolute, an "idea" which was (is) pre-given in their culture. And western devotees also had pre-given conceptions and expectations. I'm referring here to "Social-constructionism", and Berger's ideas on this (berger, The Sacred Canopy). Zimmer and Jung, with all his problems, were aware of this context. As is J. Glenn Friessen (see also his JUNG, RAMANA MAHARSHI AND EASTERN MEDITATION), but he is self-published... And Rambachan, but that's about Vivekananda. David Gordon White also mentions the need to take the context of Indian religiosity into consideration. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Good change to the lead you made. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

Wow- love the article. I haven't visited it in maybe five years, and it's looking wonderful.

Some thoughts:

• Reffering to the "I-I" in the 1st paragraph seems off to me. It is a not well known refference to his concept of enlightenment, and to someone who knows little about the subject it would be bewildering.
• Love the little details added- like thinking he was possessed, karma mukti vs his own awakening, not wanting to be at the ashram! (hadn't heard that one)
• Like the very detailed chronology of his different locations.

Now that it's built up, I think some slight trimming is in order. For example:

• "Ramana considered God, Guru and Self to be the manifestations of the same reality.[web 15] One of these manifestations is the mountain Arunachala. Ramana himself was a devotee of Lord Shiva in the form of the mountain Arunachala,[web 16] which is considered to be the manifestation of Lord Shiva.[22] Ramana considered Arunachala to be his Guru.[22] It can be worshipped through the mantra "Om arunachala shivaya namah!",[web 16] and by Pradakshina of Arunachala, a practice which is performed by Saivites as a form of worship, and also often was done by Ramana.[22] Shankara saw Arunchala as Mount Meru, which is in Indian mythology the axis of the world, and the abode of Brahman and the gods.[web 17]"

Not seeing the need to mention the mantra, nor shankara's view of it.

• Lineage doesn't really fit under the charisma section....

I think a better concept would be- Reverence of Ramana Maharshi. I think it would work well because you have well documented other's reverence of him, and his discouraging of that.

Wish I had the time to help with these ideas and I don't... I think I'll add one edit.

peace, and thanks for an amazing article Sethie (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah- the section is unbalance re the Maharshi's teachings on the inner guru, leaving out Ramana's teachings on the force or emanation that comes from the body of a jiva-mukti. I have added a small piece to hopefully bring some balance.... Sethie (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sethie, I agree with all your suggestions. The I-I details do seem like they don't belong in the first part of the article but it is so important I think it deserves its own little section. I may add a change or two you have suggested but please make changes yourself too. Iddli (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Response by Joshua Jonathan: Hi Sethie, thnaks for the appreciation! I'm glad you appreicate the details. A few comments:

• I've re-inserted the "I-I" notes at the teachings-section. It may not be well-known, but it is a central notion in his teachings.
• The word "enlightenment does not appear in "Talks"; see Google. To use this word in the lead is kind of WP:OR - though it's tempting, of course! That was also the reason to use such extensive notes, to give an explanation of the term right away. I've added the word "mukti", though, with a link; this word is used by Ramana.
• I've split the subsection on physical contact, and added some {{source?}} tags, including for the original sentence, since it's not clear if this is in the Godman-source or comes fromanother source

As for Iddli's further edits:

• I've re-inserted the charisma-header; it makes pretty clear that Ramana was charismatic. "Devotion" is part of this charisma. The link provides further insight into "charisma".
• Characterisation: I've first moved this back to his way of life, then I removed four unsourced statements, and moved two quotes to more appropriate places in the article. I've also re-inserted the {{Source?}} tags for those two quotes; no sources were provided yet. And which source says explicitly that those people teaching in his name do not behave like this?
• I've restored the older lineage-section; the previous restoration contained redundant information, and messed-up or missed references. But there-after, I've moved down the subsection "Ramana did not publicize himself as a guru" to the lineage-section, in line with Iddli's edit. There-after, I split it up, and added references.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Date of enlightenment

Date of Enlightenment The text gives 17 July 1896, and cites ref 15, but that ref gives no such date. I have not seen this date mentioned in any book. Can it be validated? Kollerstrom (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I followed the link which took me to Timeless in Time. In that book (which I happened to have) the date of enlightenment is given as 7/17/1896 (page 17). I am sure this must be right ... it was certainly July 17, and he was 16 at the time ... Iddli (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

In the book "Sri Ramana Maharshi's Moksha", a detailed astrological study of the life and moksha of Sri Ramana, the author and Vedic astrologer Sri Sankara Bhagavadpada informs the process of Moksha of Sri Ramama to have occurred between 12.56pm to 1.30pm on June 16, 1896. (page 166) The astrological origins of this spontaneous occurrence is seen from the synchronised aspects(natal & transit) by the lord of divine grace Guru (Jupiter) of the Lord Mercury (transit & natal) Prodigyhk (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced

The list of characteristics is still unsourced. See WP:RS. But, it's also not clear to me how such a list "clarif[ies] the lineage issue". I've added a comment and a quote from Conway, which makes clear (I suppose) the point you want to make. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I will add in the sources for those seven points as soon as I get the time. Some years ago, the Ramana Maharshi page was used as a way to generate traffic to the websites of various people who falsely claimed to be in his lineage. (The Ramana article stated they were in his lineage and linked their names, within the Ramana article, to their spiritual business websites.) I removed the names of those who were falsely claiming lineage and wrote those seven points as a way of making clear how very differently those people taught and lived from the way Ramana did. The contrast was so stark that no one ever placed their name in the Ramana article again as a guru in his lineage. These seven points (correctly sourced) have a place in this article. I believe many more readers are interested in the relationship between Ramana and those claiming to teach (right now) in his name than are interested in details like the fact that the sannyasin who tried to get Ramana to take sannyas belonged to Sringeri Sharada Peetham. It's okay if you want to put in little details like that -- but I suspect the main reason most people will read the lineage section is to try to understand the controversy surrounding so many people claiming to be part of a nonexistent lineage. If you read the whole section on Timothy Conway's website which you quote from (or delve into the business practices and lifestyles of those claiming to be in Ramana's lineage), you will see the relevance of those seven points. The Conway quote is excellent -- but I think the simplest thing of all is to make those seven points and not say anything critical at all about the so-called lineage holders. Iddli (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. Don't worry; as long as I'm editing on this page, lineage-claims will be scrutinised - and most likely rejected. You did read the Neo-Advaita page, didn't you? I once put a link to it on the Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher) page; it was removed right away diff & Talk:Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)/Archive 1#Classification of Cohen's Teaching.

Regarding the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, you're probably right that most people don't care. They probably don't even have a clue what it is, and what a sampradaya is. But it is relevant information; it provides information, and a context, to this guru-tradition. Also, but this goes even further, it points to the question "What is Advaita Vedanta?" The Shankara-sampradaya, or (the popularised and modernised version of) his philosophical system? Strictly speaking, Advaita Vedanta is the sampradaya; the popularised version is the current of thought (I hope my English is correct here; yours is better ) to which Ramana is connected (or annexated). Also, did you know that Nisargadatta Maharaj was not authorised by his teacher to appoint "heirs" himself? That's also a relevant piece of information on the workings of this sampradaya-system (though it does not have to be included in the article).

Nevertheless, I still doubt if you can just put in this list. But I do see your point, so I'll also think about it further too. How about adding those points (when they are sourced) as a note?

Meanwhile, I'll also scrutinise the information which is already in this section, and check the sources again. Extensive sourcing is very useful here, I think, given the point you made above, and the strategy you followed.

Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

One source missing: "Ramana did not publicize himself as a guru". But lots of references added, and some revealing quotes. Also, maybe to your chagrin, examples of teachers who claim to be in "Ramana's lineage". But, in a note, and contained within a few critical remarks on those claims. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Got a source for that one too! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Searching the sources

Let's see what we can find. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Sri Ramana's method of teaching was characterized by all of the following:"

Comment by JJ: - This remark makes more sense when it is preceded by a short overview of shortcomings of Neo-Advaita teachers. But, then we would have a repetition of the Neo-Advaita article, or a mere list of accusations and wrongdoings (for example: teacher X had an extra-marital affair, teacher Y bought an expensive Mercedes). Which is probably not acceptable for Wikipedia, and not interesting anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

1. He urged people who came to him to practice self-enquiry;

'Comment by JJ: - Funny, I thought we had that one sourced in the article, but we don't - yet. But this is the one being used in the lead: David Godman (1991), I' and 'I-I' - A Reader's Query. The Mountain Path, 1991, pp. 79-88. Part one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

2. He directed people to look inward rather than seeking outside themselves for Realization. ("The true Bhagavan resides in your Heart as your true Self. This is who I truly am.");

Comment by JJ: - Full quote: "Do not cling to the form of the Guru for this will perish; do not cling to His feet for His attendants will stop you. The true Bhagavan resides in your Heart as your true Self. This is who I truly am." Full quote which comes from Annamalai Swamy and is quoted by Source: David Godman

3. He viewed all who came to him as the Self rather than as lesser beings. ("The jnani sees no one as an ajnani. All are only jnanis in his sight.");

Comment by JJ: - [4] And here's an online edition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

4. He charged no money, and was adamant that no one ever ask for money (or anything else) in his name;
5. He never promoted or called attention to himself. Instead, Sri Ramana remained in one place for 54 years, offering spiritual guidance to anyone of any background who came to him, and asking nothing in return;
6. He considered humility to be the highest quality;
7. He said the deep sense of peace one felt around a jnani was the surest indicator of their spiritual state, that equality towards all was a true sign of liberation, and that what a true jnani did was always for others, not themselves.