Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Association with a guru

I've removed the following sentence, which was added by Sethie:

"Ramana said that association with a guru was one of the most parts of a spiritual aspirants life, because most people would be unable to attain enlightenment."

It's unsourced, but it also makes no sense:

• "most parts": should this be "most important parts" (c.q. aspects)?
• "most people would be unable to attain enlightenment" - then what is the rationale for association with a guru? Should "on their own" be added? But how does that relate to his own awakening and subsequent development?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's David Goodman's understanding of RM's teachings

It is a basic tenet of Sri Ramana’s teaching that a Guru is necessary for almost everyone who is striving towards a permanent awareness of the Self. The catalytic role of the Guru in spiritual development is therefore crucial; except in rare instances, ignorance of the Self is so deeply rooted that individual seekers are unable to escape from it by their own efforts. [1]

Word it how you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.65.78 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition. Nevertheless, it's not a matter of wording it "how I like it", or you, or anybody else, but what Ramana Maharshi said. The removed text was unsourced. And the quote from David Godman is not what Ramana Maharshi said, but what David Godman said. It's a kind of interpretation or synthesis, creating a teaching, as an interconnected body of instructions, from the answers Ramana Maharshi gave to questions from visitors. So, what did ramana Maharshi himself say? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipeidia is based on using not just direct quotes, but also using reliable secondary sources of experts giving there interpretation of of the primary sources.

Go look at the article on Jesus. It is full of quotes not just of the Bible, but experts offering their understanding of what he said. Sethie (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is Ramana's own view on the subject: "Sri Ramana Maharshi: Although in absolute truth the state of the Guru is that of oneself (the Self), it is very hard for the self which has become the individual (jiva or embodied soul) through ignorance, to realise its true state or nature without the grace of the Guru."

Question: Some people reported you to have said that there was no need for a Guru. Others gave the opposite report. What does Maharshi say?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: I have never said that there is no need for a Guru.

The Guru is absolutely necessary. The Upanishads say that none but a Guru can take a man out of the jungle of intellect and sense perceptions. So there must be a Guru.

Question: When loyal to one master can you respect others?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Guru is only one. He is not physical. So long as there is weakness the support of strength is needed

Question: Is success not dependent on the Guru’s grace?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes,

Question: Is it absolutely necessary to have a Guru if one is seeking Self-realisation?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: So long as you seek Self-realisation the Guru is necessary. Guru is the Self. Take Guru to be the real Self and your self as the individual self. The disappearance of this sense of duality is the removal of ignorance. So long as duality persists in you the Guru is necessary.

Ramana: He who bestows the supreme knowledge of Self upon the soul by making it face towards Self alone is the supreme Guru who is praised by sages as the form of God, who is Self. Cling to him.

He who bestows the supreme knowledge of Self upon the soul by making it face towards Self alone is the supreme Guru who is praised by sages as the form of God, who is Self. Cling to him.

As I said before, word it as you like. Sethie (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

http://www.hinduism.co.za/guru.htm#The%20Guru

Removal of the I-I

According to Ramana " Because on many other occasions Bhagavan told devotees that the 'I-I' experience was merely a prelude to realisation and not the realisation itself. " it doesn't belong in the intro..... if there is a section about approaching realization, maybe it could go there? Sethie (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That's Godman's interpretation: "In his writings Bhagavan has made several relatively brief statements(7) in which he equates the 'I-I' experience with the Self. At first sight they appear to be descriptions of the state of Self-realisation, but when they are read in conjunction with the long explanations of the 'I-I' that can be found elsewhere in his writings (8) and in his verbal comments, it is possible to see in these verses a description of the impermanent aham sphurana rather than the permanent state of realisation. This is an unusual interpretation, but I believe that it is a sustainable one. However, I would not go so far as to say that it is the only legitimate way of interpreting these verses."[2]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Besides, the sentence does not say that "I-I is realization" (of what, by the way?), it says"Ramana recommended self-enquiry as the principal way to awaken to the "I-I",[web 1] realizing the Self[7] and attaining liberation.[8][note 5]". Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lineage

With this edit the following sourced info was removed. Why?

"While a few who came to see him are said to have become enlightened through association, he did not publicly acknowledge any living person as liberated other than his mother at death."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In my edit, I only moved this sentence to the end of the section. Later, in the edit here, you have removed this sentence, by errorProdigyhk (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? You removed the sentence; it was inserted back by my revert, as you can see in the diff you provided. Could you try to be careful in your edits? You removed sourced info without explanation, next you say I made a mistake. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In my original edit, I had moved this sentence to the bottom. While when you reverted my edit, you moved it to the top. Then, when I checked I did not see it at the original position and so I said you made the error.... one of those silly confusions.. like a dog chasing its own tail :)) Prodigyhk (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

dead links

Footnote #44 and other links which resolve to bhagavan-ramana.org are dead. — goethean 20:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I see that some of the links to that site still work, but the ones that went to whole books do not. This is likely because Sri Ramanasramam put out the word last year that they wanted all sites to take down free pdfs to entire books (which they hold the copyright to and which are available on their site, some for free). We need to sort out which of the bhagavan-ramana.org links still work and remove the ones that don't or redirect the link to Sri Ramanasramam's book section. I also see that someone has changed the spelling of "Bhagavan" above Sri Ramana's photo in the article so it is misspelled now. (Iddli (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC))

Not done for now: Could you make a list of which links are broken, and how you would like them to be updated? For example, they could be fixed, or tagged with {{dead link}}. Or perhaps it would be easier to put all the changes in a sandbox version of the article at e.g. Talk:Ramana Maharshi/sandbox so that I can see the exact wikitext that you would like updated. Once you have done this, feel free to reactivate the {{editprotected}} template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Seven Points

I paste here what I found in relation with the seven points suggested by Iddli. I make a new section since the old one is getting way too long. If you find the information interesting feel free to use it, I and kind of clumsy when it comes to edit ;P

Here we go:

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

“it is not only as a technique of meditation that Sri Bhagavan prescribed Self-enquiry but as a technique of living also” Arthur Osborne, The Path of Self Knowledge, P. 172

“He (Bhagavan) was quite categorical about its preeminence. “Self-enquiry is the one infallible means, the only direct one, to realize the unconditioned, absolute Being that you really are...” Arthur Osborne, The Path of Self Knowledge, P. 166

“Sri Ramana maintained that other techniques could only take one to the place where self-enquiry starts and so he never endorsed them unless he felt that particular questioners were unable or unwilling to adopt self-enquiry.” David Godman, Be As You Are, C. 10

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," he said.)

“All that appear outside are in reality inside and not outside; it is in order to teach this that in the Vedas also all have been described as of the nature of the heart. What is called the heart is no other than Brahman.” Ramana Maharshi, Vicharasangraham, C.8

“Just as the pearl-diver ties a stone to his waist, sinks to the bottom of the sea and there takes the pearls, so each one of us should be endowed with non-attachment, dive within oneself and obtain the Self-Pearl.” Ramana Maharshi, Who Am I?, C.19

“Do not fix your attention on all these changing things of life, death and phenomena. Do not think of even the actual act of seeing or perceiving them, but only of that which sees all these things — that which is responsible for it all. This will seem nearly impossible at first, but by degrees the result will be felt. It takes years of steady, daily practice, and that is how a Master is made. Give a quarter of an hour a day for this practice. Try to keep the mind unshakenly fixed on That which sees. It is inside yourself.” Arthur Osborne, The Path of Self Knowlegde, P. 112

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," Sri Ramana said.)

“A visitor asked Sri Bhagavan, “You are Bhagavan. So you would know when I shall get jnana. Tell me when I shall be a jnani.” Sri Bhagavan replied, “If I am Bhagavan there is no one besides the Self - therefore no jnani or ajnani. If otherwise I am as good as you are and know as much as yourself. Either way I cannot answer your question.” Sri Munagala S. Venkataramiah, Talks With Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, T. 48

“In most of the conversations in this chapter he accepts that his questioners perceive a distinction between the jnani and the ajnani, and, without challenging the basis of that assumption, he assumes the role of the jnani and attempts to explain the implications of being in that state.” David Godman, Be As You Are, C. 3

4. He charged no money, and was adamant that no one ever ask for money (or anything else) in his name

“Then (upon his arrival at Tiruvannamalai) , standing on the steps of the tank, he threw away his remaining money — a little over three rupees. He never handled money again.” Arthur Osborne, The Path of Self Knowlegde, P. 25

“Sri Bhagavan invited the thieves to coine in through thc proper doorway and asked the devotees to give them a hurricane lamp so that they could look for whatever they ivanted, yet they shouted angrily, "Where are you keeping your money?". "We are sadhus who live by begging, we have no money. From what you can find here, you may take away anything you want. We will come outside." so s-ayiilg, Sri Bhagavan came and sat outside followed by the devotees” Sri Sadhu Om, The Path of Sri Ramana, P. 24

“As he came out of the temple and was walking along the streets of the town, someone called out and asked whether he wanted his tuft removed. He consented readily, and was conducted to the Ayyankulam tank where a barber shaved his head. Then he stood on the steps of the tank and threw away into the water his remaining money. He also discarded the packet of sweets given by the Bhagavatar’s wife.” T. M. P. Mahadevan, M. A., Ph.D., Bhagavan Ramana

5. He never promoted or called attention to himself. Instead, Sri Ramana remained in one place for 55 years, offering spiritual guidance to anyone of any background who came to him, and asking nothing in return

“Why did Sri Bhagavan, who was so modest, who insisted on equal treatment with the humblest, allow this prostration before him? Although humanly he refused all privileges, he recognised that adoration of the outwardly manifested Guru was helpful to sadhana, to spiritual progress. Not that outward forms of submission were sufficient. He once said explicitly, “Men prostrate themselves before me but I know who is submitted in his heart.” Arthur Osborne, The Path of Self Knowlegde, P. 141

“The rest of what we regard as Ramana’s life (he was sixteen or seventeen by that time) - this is how we shall call him hereafter - was spent in Tiruvannamalai.” T. M. P. Mahadevan, M. A., Ph.D., Bhagavan Ramana

“Whatever their reasons for coming almost everyone who came into contact with him was impressed by his simplicity and his humbleness. He made himself available to visitors twenty-four hours a day by living and sleeping in a communal hall which was always accessible to everyone, and his only private possessions were a loin-cloth, a water- pot and a walking-stick.” David Godman, Be As You Are, Introduction

6. He considered humility to be the highest quality

“One’s greatness increases to the extent one becomes humble. The reason why God is Supreme to such an extent that the whole universe bows to Him, is His sublime state of humility in which the deluded ego never rises unknowingly.” Sri Muruganar, Guru Vachaka Kovai, Part One, C. 84 (V. 494)

“By his own life and example Sri Ramana taught us the great importance not only of kindness, love, tender-heartedness, consideration, compassion and ahimsa, but also of humility, selflessness, desirelessness, non-acquisitiveness, non-possessiveness, non-wastefulness, generosity, contentment, self-restraint, self-denial and utter simplicity of lifestyle.” Michael James, Happiness and The Art of Being, P. 599

“M.: Pride of learning and desire for appreciation are condemned and not learning itself. Learning leading to search for Truth and humility is good.” Sri Munagala S. Venkataramiah, Talks With Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, T. 253

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 for themselves

“Question 3: There are a number of spiritual teachers, teaching various paths. Whom should one take for one’s Guru? Bhagavan: Choose that one where you find you get shanti or peace.” A. Devaraja Mudaliar, Day by Day with Bhagavan, P. 197

“Sadhu Om (explaining a verse about bhagavan´s teachings): Since equality [samatvam] is the nature of God, God-experience is called samadhi [the state in which the mind stands in equilibrium]. Hence those who deny equality to others, are going against God.” Sri Muruganar, Guru Vachaka Kovai, Part Two, C. 75 (V. 241)

“I have said that equality is the true sign of jnana. The very term equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality.” David Godman, Be as You Are, C.3

“Sadhu Om: Sri Bhagavan used to say that doing nishkamya karma [i.e. performing action without desire for the fruit] truly means only abiding in the state in which one has no sense of doership in the actions that are performed.” Sri Muruganar, Guru Vachaka Kovai, Part Three, C. 50 (P. 366)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauna22 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Mauna22 Since, I am busy with other tasks, will review and give feedback by next week. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Mauna22, you have done a magnificent job with this! (Iddli (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC))

Thaks both! We´ll keep in touch Mauna22 (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for lineage-section

Regarding this section, suggest we relayout the data in the following flow : -> a) Sri Ramana was not part of any lineage. It is important for us to highlight that Sri Ramana's Awakening was a rare and spontaneous occurrence and not by the intervention of any Guru. b) Sri Ramana did not start any lineage to continue his work after him. Let us keep it brief. We do not need to highlight about claims and counter-claims of the supposedly "lineage" people :-)

The new text suggested as below:

Although Ramana's teachings have often been labeled as Advaita Vedanta[61], he never received initiation into the Dashanami Sampradaya or any other sampradaya[note 22] as a sannyasin.[web 19][63][web 18][note 23] A sannyasin belonging to the Sringeri Sharada Peetham, one of the monasteries founded by Adi Shankara, once tried to persuade Ramana to be initiated into sannyasa, but Ramana refused.[63] In the Arunachala Puranam[translation 2], left behind by an old man, Ramana found the following verse:

Those who reside within the radius of three yojanas (30 miles) of this place [Arunachala], even if they have not had initiation, shall by my supreme decree attain Liberation, free from all attachments.[63]. Ramana copied this verse on a slip of paper, and when the sannyasin returned, Ramana showed the verse, where-after the sannyasin gave up and left.[63]

Ramana did not publicize himself as a guru[57], never claimed to have disciples,[web 17] and never appointed any successors.[web 18][web 19][web 20][note 16] Ramana never promoted any lineage.[web 18][note 18]

While a few who came to see him are said to have become enlightened through association[citation needed][note 24], he did not publicly acknowledge any living person as liberated[web 17] other than his mother at death.(Osborne 1959 p.74)

Despite this, there are numerous contemporary teachers who assert, suggest, or are said by others, to be in his lineage.[6][web 22][web 18][web 23][web 20][note 19][note 20] These assertions have been disputed by other teachers.[web 33][web 34]. In contrast to those Neo-Advaita teachers,[web 34] Ramana and like-minded teachers like Nisargadatta Maharaj[web 34][note 21] never charged any fees or "suggested donations" and generously, virtuously, compassionately and heroically lived and exemplified the Advaita or Advaya, not just talked about it.[web 34]

sincere best wishes Prodigyhk (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you live (India?), but where I and my dear opponent Iddli live, Neo-Advaita (which is not the same as Neo-Vedanta!!!) those "lineage-people" are an issue. And be sure, this Wikipedia-article is also being read by their followers. So, I don't agree with this change, and Iddli probably neither. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Presently I spend my time between India and other parts of Asia. These terms Neo-Advaita I found only during editing Wikipedia. Personally, think these are nonsense labels :)

About the "lineage-people", I see you and Iddli(talk)concerns. My suggestion remove all claims and counter-claims in this section. At present, the section "Lineage" sounds more like forum discussion. Need to keep focus on the subject Sri Ramana. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And why do we "need to keep focus on the subject Sri Ramana"? I haven't seen a rationale for that yet. But I did notice that you did a lot of editing on Kalki Bhagavan; could it be that there is some personal interest for you in having removed this info on "teachers" claims on Ramana Maharshi? Maybe? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

yes. I do have great personal interest in the life of Sri Ramana, as he is one of the great world masters from my nation.

Other than the article on Kalki Bhagavan, I have also done work on I Am That, Ashtavakra_Gita and other articles which you can see from my user page.

This article on Sri Ramana does have a separate section for notable students, which already includes those who claim to be his students/lineages/etc. So we can remove the forum style discussion on claims/counter-claims in this section lineage. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

There is some repetition, indeed. We could move the lineage-section downward, end merge it with "devotees". Stiil, you're not very explicit on why this section should be removed, other than "forum style discussion". It is relevant, given the popularity of Ramana Maharshi in the west. And indeed, I noticed your other articles. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not ask for this section Lineage to be removed. It is important to be kept. My request is we change the flow, and remove the parts on claims/counter-claims.

1. We start section on whether Sri Ramana comes from any lineage. This we are clear that Sri Ramana's awakening was a rare natural occurrence unlike that of say Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj who was part of Navnath Sampradaya Or Sri Milarepa who was from the Kagyu lineage. Sri Ramana is not part of any lineage nor want to be initiated into any lineage.

2. Next, we mention on if Sri Ramana started any lineage. And this we are clear that Sri Ramana, unlike say Sri Adi Shankara did not start any lineage.

3. We remove the sentences on claims/counter-claims of some about the existence of a lineage. It is a worthless discussion to include here. If they are worthy students of Sri Ramana, they will be included in the other section notable devotees.

Prodigyhk (talk) 07:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me think about it for a day or two; I've read your suggestion, but right now I don't have the time for constructive input. Maybe tomorrow-morning (it's early evening here in Holland now), and else the morning there-after. Okay? by the way, good addition on Friedman. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look at it. The subsection "Lineage" is in the section "Charisma" - Ramana Maharshi's charisma, the effect he had on others.

The subsection has three parts:

• Intro: "Ramana did not publicize himself as a guru" - This is an intro to the second part;
• Lineage-claims: "Ramana never promoted any lineage. Despite this (etc)" - this is the central part. Ramana's charisma has been used as a legitimisation of a host of gurus, as illustrated by the links. The quote makes clear that there are essential differences;
• Illustrative story: "Although Ramana's teachings have often been labeled as Advaita Vedanta" - htis makes clear that Ramana himself did not belong to a sampradaya. The anecdote is illustrative to this. It's very specific, and closes the subsection.

So, to my opinion, this subsection is well-placed, well-organised, and highly relevant to the article. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. We both have agreement that the sub-section is required. Good.

The deletion required is the forum style discussions on the claims/counter claims of the Neo-Advaita group. If you wish, you may re-edit and post these on the page Neo-Advaita. These do not need to be highlighted on this page. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You've got a funny understanding of WP:CONCENSUS: deleting the part you want to delete, while there is no concensus. You still haven't given arguments as to why "These do not need to be highlighted on this page". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The group Neo-Advaita that you belong to is a fringe group among the many millions of followers of Sri Ramana. If you want to highlight the personal differences within that fringe group, the right space is to included in that specific page Neo-Advaita. Please do understand I have no personal knowledge nor interest in this fringe group. I just find it written badly and is not required in this space.

Since we both disagree on this. It means there is no WP:CONCENSUS. The right action would be to remove it. If you require, you may request admin help to resolve this. Till then it will be best to delete it.

Had also included a large section of Sri Ramanashram. These are important historical information, with detailed references. Why do you remove it ? Prodigyhk (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for advice from other editors

My friend Joshua and I have a disagreement. Request for advice and suggestions from fellow editors. In this section, I removed the following text, detailing what I felt are petty claims/counter-claims on lineage from people who it seems belong to a western group known as Neo-Advaita

Despite this, there are numerous contemporary teachers who assert, suggest, or are said by others, to be in his lineage.[6][web 22][web 18][web 23][web 20][note 19][note 20] These assertions have been disputed by other teachers.[web 33][web 34]. In contrast to those Neo-Advaita teachers,[web 34] Ramana and like-minded teachers like Nisargadatta Maharaj[web 34][note 21] never charged any fees or "suggested donations" and generously, virtuously, compassionately and heroically lived and exemplified the Advaita or Advaya, not just talked about it.[web 34]

Reason for deletion of this paragraph within this section. (1). This section is very clear that Sri Ramana does not have a lineage. No need to expand to give publicity for the claims and counter claims. (2) The Neo-Advaita group does have a separate page, where these claims/counter-claims are detailed in much length. (3) It is very poorly written like a forum style discussion.

Note - I do not have any personal bias against this group Neo-Advaita. The first time I read about this group is here on WP. Prodigyhk (talk) 05:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear: I'm not a Neo-Advaitin. And simply removing content while there is no concensus is quite rude. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the lashram-section. You can re-insert it - in the original section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand, it is difficult editing WP and work through disagreement. May be if we were to sit next to each other we could easily solve this. For the reasons mentioned above, I would prefer we just leave the specific paragraph deleted for now. Let us wait for other editors opinions. Also, you could tell me why you think it is important to be included in this page, since it is already well detailed in the other page Neo-Advaita.. Let us keep talking. and I am sure we can solve it. Have a great morning :)Prodigyhk (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

Joshua Jonathan asked me to take a look at this article; what I saw upon arrival is an edit war. As such, I have fully protected the article for a week. In that time, please use some form of dispute resolution to try to get outside input. The easiest first step is to ask for a Third opinion; if that doesn't give you enough input, you can start a neutrally worded request for comment.

Note that I did not protect the current version because it is "correct". In fact, I have no idea which version is better. I just protected it as the last version, what admins call protecting the "wrong version". So please don't take this as my endorsement of removal of the paragraph in contention. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Thanks for the intervention. I've asked Prodigyhk several times for further arguments than 'I don't like it'. The latest reponse was:

"(1). This section is very clear that Sri Ramana does not have a lineage. No need to expand to give publicity for the claims and counter claims." - Why not? Still no further arguments. This is another version of "I don't like it". See WP:IDONTLIKEIT;

"(2) The Neo-Advaita group does have a separate page, where these claims/counter-claims are detailed in much length." - So? I've explained the relevance of this subsection before, which was simply ignored;

"(3) It is very poorly written like a forum style discussion." - I simply do not agree with that qualification.

Basically, it comes down to ignoring the discussion, and simply pushing your point of view. Unacceptable for Wikipedia, and very poor behaviour. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've requested [3O]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Joshua you are making baseless allegations against me. I have raised my concerns on 8:13, 29 July 2013 Talk:Ramana_Maharshi#Lineage. Over the next few days, have explained to you need to change the flow and trim the section. When I found that 2 of disagreed on this, at 06:13,2/Aug/13 had included Talk:Ramana_Maharshi#Request_for_advice_from_other_editors. But, strangely you do not seem to appreciating that I do want to discuss and work out a solution with you.

Now to the above points, please note my response to you as below.

(1) I have highlighted earlier that the section Notable students, includes claims/ counter-claim arguments of Neo-Advaita folks. So, not required to REPEAT again in lineage

(2) the only reason you provided to keep the paragraph is --> {where I and my dear opponent Iddli live, Neo-Advaita those "lineage-people" are an issue. And be sure, this Wikipedia-article is also being read by their followers. So, I don't agree with this change, and Iddli probably neither.}. Do you have any other reasons other than this ? Please state your your reason clearly on why you require this claims/counter claims in multiple locations within this page.

Since we both disagree with each other, the way forward is we await opinion from few other editors to advice if this redundant sentence is to be a) included b) not included c) included in a modified form. We can then make the decision. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole reason this lineage-section is in the article, is because of those lineage-claims. If you think it's a minor issue, you could have asked for 3O before making your change. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Response from Mauna22 to request for advice from other editors

Hello Joshua and Prodigyhk! I would like to make my point here just in case you find it useful in this dispute.

1-Sri Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi never gave initiation (Upadeśa) to anyone as far as we know. From that point on to talk about a lineage doesn´t make much sense to me. You can talk perhaps about a “Papaji lineage” if anything.

2-Sri Bhagavan, though usually linked to Advaita Vedanta was not strictly speaking a vedantin and he never got any kind of initiation into the order of Sankara.

3- Neo-Advaita is a very loose term to refer a movement in the west inspired by the teachings of various western (and eastern) teachers, but the movement itself is not Vedanta, much less Advaita Vedanta which is a branch of Vedanta ( Indeed in my opinion Neo-Advaita is not even non-dual but let´s keep this aside).

So I don´t think it makes much sense to talk about a lineage that never really occurred. He didn´t came from a lineage and he didn’t authorize anyone to teach under any kind of creed philosophy or set of teachings. In the other hand Neo-Advaita, it´s teachers and followers, are a motley crew with very different kind of sources of inspiration, something like the New Age movement. Anyone can claim to be inspired by this or that teacher, but does it make sense to let them be in an encyclopedic article? I don´t think so.

If the issue (the lineage) is such a big deal let it have its section on the Neo-Advaita article and that´s it. This lineage thing is more an annoyance than a real event in his life or teachins. The page for Ramana Maharshi is a great one, just keep it the closest to the man and the teachings as possible ;) Mauna22 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Response from iddli to request for advice from other editors

As an editor who has worked extensively on this article for the last 6 years or so, I would like to suggest that we put back the section I wrote many years ago which handles the lineage question. Here is the earlier version:

Sri Ramana did not publicize himself as being a guru, he never appointed any successors, and he never claimed to have any disciples, either. While a few who came to see him are said to have become enlightened through association with him, he did not publicly acknowledge any living person as liberated other than his mother at death. Sri Ramana declared himself an atiasrama [25](beyond all caste and religious restrictions, not attached to anything in life), and did not belong to any lineage, nor did he ever indicate that he wanted to create to a lineage. He considered his own guru to be the Self, in the form of the sacred mountain Arunachala.

His method of teaching was characterized by the following:

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

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," he said.)

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," Sri Ramana said.)

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 55 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 for themselves.

Despite the above and the statement of the Ashram's official magazine that there is no lineage[26], there are many contemporary gurus/teachers who publicly associate themselves with Sri Ramana, some who claim a kind of lineage with Ramana [27].

I wrote the above section to address, diplomatically, the topic of people making false lineage claims. I tried to make the language direct and clear and to avoid any disparaging remarks about any specific people who are confused about the lineage topic and have somehow come to believe they are part of a non-existent lineage. As you will note, the "lineage gurus" teach in a way that is not aligned with Ramana Maharshi's ways -- so if there were a lineage, which there is not, they would not qualify because they do not follow Ramana's practices (his refusal to allow any kind of fundraising in his name, his humility, his lack of claims of specialness, his uncompromising integrity, the peace he radiated to all (rather than scandals, hypocrisy, and doubletalk), etc. The section I wrote was intended to make clear, without naming any names, that anyone claiming enlightenment, calling attention to him or herself through publicity, and asking for money could not possibly be in Ramana's lineage in any sense of the word. Perhaps it would be best if we removed the last line of the section I wrote to make things even simpler.

The fact that people make absurd claims about a well-known figure does not seem to me to be a reason to devote a section of an article about that figure to these claims. There are droves of people claiming to be Jesus Christ but that does not mean we need to list them in Christ's wikipedia article or devote paragraphs to examining the validity of their claims. There are also people who claim to receive direct personal instructions from their wrist watches or their tennis shoes .... but we do not need to add sections under "Wrist Watch" or "Tennis Shoe" to explore all this confusion. It can go under an article on Delusions.

A primary reason for people in the spiritual business to claim ties to Ramana and have their names included in his wikipedia article is that this helps generate money. When I first began editing this article, there were all sorts of direct links from the Ramana article to the money-generating websites of various "lineage holders". I removed all these names and links because Wikipedia in not intended for this purpose. If anyone wants to write an article about any of these people and say, in that article, that they claim to be part of the non-existent lineage of a Guru who taught in a very different way from them, that is fine. I would feel quite differently about this whole matter if there was any validity to the claims and if they were not part of a business scheme. The whole thing could perhaps be moved to an article called "Spiritual Scams" or even "Spiritual Confusions" and explored in any sort of depth there. (Iddli (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

ACCEPT Iddli (Talk) suggestion to include the original text that was in place few years ago. This original text is well balanced and clear to the point. And also agree with Iddli the last sentence could be removed to keep it simple. Prodigyhk (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree too --Mauna22 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

We've discussed this list of qualities before; most of them are unsourced, and were removed for that reason. The present discussion is not a valid reason to bypass WP:VERIFY and reinsert them; they are still unsourced. The subsection that is now in the article is sourced, even without the disputed lines. Replacing sourced info by unsourced info is not an option. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose that we find sources for the statements. I will work on this as soon as I get a chance. Joshua Jonathan, you say you removed the points that characterize Ramana's method of teaching because they were unsourced ... yet you have scattered throughout the article an invalid source (a self-published book) which I pointeded out months ago needed to be removed/cleaned up. Out of consideration for all your hard work and a desire to work cooperatively, I did not gut the article by removing all your improperly sourced statements, but hoped you would clean up your work. If you want to remove every line in the article that is not sourced in a way that complies with wikipedia rules, would you kindly remove all your own improperly sourced sentences before you remove other people's? Your style of editing seems to be to remove every edit that does not fit your own agenda, citing wikipedia rules for all your deletions or insisting that people justify edits that make perfect sense (such as the rather absurd question you directed at another editor: "And why do we "need to keep focus on the subject Sri Ramana"? I haven't seen a rationale for that yet.") Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative effort, but you seem to have taken over the Ramana Maharshi article and the Neo-Advaita article and assumed the role of master editor, as if no one can make a change unless you approve it. I have read extensively on the subject of Neo-Advaita over the last few years but cannot touch that article without your deleting my edits. This heavy-handed approach drives away good editors who do not want to get into edit wars. I request feedback from other editors on whether we should source the list and add it back in. If necessary, we can adjust the wording of the points to better fit the sources and if something can't be sourced, we can delete it -- but I suggest we retain the spirit of the list. Would Proigyhk and Mauna22 and others please offer feedback about this approach and/or help with the sourcing of the list? Thanks. (Iddli (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC))

I think is the best option: to find sources for the statements. I don´t have the books with me now but I read “The path of self Knowledge” for instance and I know there´s plenty of information on most of the points, so instead spending time arguing and saying that there are no sources I think it would be better to collaborate and adding the references Mauna22 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that adding unsourced statements to the article is not an option--it's the opposite of a solution. Additionally, which book in the article is self-published? It should be removed, as should all statements it supports. WP:V and WP:RS are not things you can come to a consensus to ignore. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Qwyyrxian, I meant we should find the sources before adding that list (and sources) back into the article. The self-published book is called Ramana Maharshi: His Life by G. Ebert. (Iddli (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC))

Ah, good :). Sorry for misunderstanding. As for the Ebert book, every single reference to it should be removed from the article. JJ, are you willing to do so (if I've understood correctly, you added it first, right?)? Qwyrxian (talk) 01:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Now on checking the deleted paragraph, find sources used are direct links to self-published blogs/websites of those lineage claimants and their opponents. Request all lineage claims/attacks be kept out of this page. Let us keep focus on Sri Ramana and his teaching in this page. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Prodigyhk, I am in complete agreement with you. Let's keep the focus on Sri Ramana and his teaching. The article should not include any links to the self-published blogs of people making lineage claims or to other sites disputing these claims. As for the 7 points that characterize Sri Ramana's teaching, I have found sources for several and am looking for the rest. (Iddli (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC))

Fair point about Ebert... I'm trying to take a Wiki-break, following Qwyrxian's advice; it helps I don't mind removing those parts myself, or replacing them with proper sources; yet the Wiki-break is all-right at the moment, and I'd like to continue it for a few weeks (also because we're renovating our new home), so I can't blame other editors if they remove those parts. There's always time later (or much later) to come back to those points and provide proper sources, if I can find them.
But I've also got a point on this: most sources on Ramana are written by admirers; many publications are publications from the Ramanashram. I'm afraid that the article relies heavily on such sources, and that most of them don't qualify as WP:RS or secondary source either.
As for the list: I'd found some references already, as mentioned in the Talk page-section I'd linked to; nevertheless I prefer straight statements on the non-existence of a Ramana-lineage, instead of a list of qualities from which readers are supposed to deduce that all thise Neo-Advaita teachers are different from Ramana Maharshi. It feels like some sort of WP:OR, and little hagiographic. But that's my personal feeling with it.
I also don't agree they shouldn't be mentioned; there are quite a lot of them, and Ramana is an inpsiration for many of them, so that makes them relevant. Not mentioning them makes Ramana appear as some sort of 'isolated', or 'timeless' phenomenon, whih he is (or was) not. it might also have the opposite effect, something like: "Ramana was a wonderfull person, my teacher is connected to him, so he/she is also a wonderful person".
Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"if I can find them". Yeah, right... Or if anyone can find them. You are still acting as if you were the one and only intended editor as far as this page is concerned: [[3]] Mauna22 (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The message above was deleted by Goethean under the premise "rv violation of WP:TALK try to keep messages about article". I do not agree. My comment was about the heavy control an editor is trying to impose on this page, so yes my comment is about the article Mauna22 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are incorrect. See WP:TALK. This talk page is to be used to discuss the article. Take your complaints about user behavior to the appropriate noticeboard. — goethean 19:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

goethean Request not disrupt by deleting talk message. The comment from Mauna22 is continuation to concerns raised by Qwyrxian about some edits by User:Joshua Jonathan. Please read above discussions for better understanding. Thanks Prodigyhk (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Joshua Jonathan That is an excellent advice by Qwyrxian to take a break from wiki work. It is good. Have fun with the renovation work and ping us when you are ready. Prodigyhk (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian Iddli and Mauna22 thanks for all your inputs. Now, with User:Joshua Jonathan on his wiki break, I suppose we put this lineage issue on hold.

With regard to the issue of Ebert, noticed it is in multiple locations of the article. Will require much time to rework. For now, have removed it from the "Further reading" section [4] Prodigyhk (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We've moved last week, and the house is great. The Wiki-break works good, though I'm taking now the opportunity to read and respond.

The "Further reading" section is exactly where Ebert could be mentioned; it gives suggestions for further reading, not sources for the article itself.

Regarding Mauna22's response & the use of sources: I do think that most sources on Ramana Maharshi are problematic, because most of them are written by admirers. Do you know of any academic or critical source on him? Most sources are written by admirers, made up of "narratives", idealised stories which use specific frameworks which are not explicated.

• The enlightenment-story is a good example: it's clear that the best-known story is not an accurate account, but an account influenced by the ideas and beliefs of the writer.
• Another example is the description of Ramana's first years at Arunachala, where he was just sitting in silence without eating. To "normal-life standards" this is pretty weird behaviour. Hadn't it been for some admirers who interpreted this behaviour as signs of enlightenment and holiness, Ramana might have starved himself. Is there any other interpretation possible? AMA Samy, an Indian Zen-teacher, has suggested that Ramana Maharshi may have been autistic, to explain this behaviour (in "Zen Heart, Zen mind"). Quite a different story, isn't it?
• And Alan Edwards comes to the conclusion, in "Ramana Maharshi and the Colonial Encounter", that the popular (western) image of Ramana as a self-enlighted, "universal" "token of wisdom", was picked up by Indian nationalists in the 1930's and '40's and further popularised, because it fitted into their idealised image of India as a spiritual nation (remember: Ramana was a Tamil Shaiva bhakti, who has come known throughout the world as an Indian Advaita Vedanta jnanin. Anyone who knows just a little bit about Indian (regional) nationalism and religious factionalism, is probably aware of the discrepancies between those two sets of identities).
• And of course, this western image was fueled by long-existing romantic western notions of India as a country where long-forgotten ancient wisom was still alive.

So, who makes the stories, and where is the critical information? For a balanced article, those questions are relevant too, not only the admiration. And don't get me wrong on that: I'm an admirer too. Ramana saved my soul when I was 18. But I'm 44 now, and I have questions about Ramana Maharshi and the context in which he lived and was/is admired, which are not answered by "narratives".

Greetings, and best to all of you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

“The enlightenment-story is a good example: it's clear that the best-known story is not an accurate account, but an account influenced by the ideas and beliefs of the writer.”

What do you mean by that? Do you have the real and accurate version so you can compare it with the one influenced by ideas and beliefs of... Whom????

“Another example is the description of Ramana's first years at Arunachala, where he was just sitting in silence without eating. To "normal-life standards" this is pretty weird behaviour.”

Well, I read several accounts on Ramana´s life and I didn´t find anywhere such statement “without eating”. You can read for example in The Path of Self Knowledge by Osborne: “He lived in great austerity, eating only one meal a day and that merely the food that had been offered to the God in puja, without even salt for seasoning”. Are you looking at the wrong sources? It seems strange to me that with so many good biographical information you only find the “weird” ones.

NOTE: I´m sorry, I made a mistake, the previous quote (He lived in great austerity...) was about the sadhu Palaniswami, one of the first devotees of Sri Bhagavan, not about Bhagavan himself. A bit earlier in the same book we can find this comment about Ramana Maharshi´s diet during some time after his arrival at Tiruvannamalai: "He would sit motionless in samadhi (absorption) and sometimes nourishment had to be put into his mouth as he paid no heed when it was offered him.". There are few comments on this subject in the first pages of the book. Still there is no such thing as "without eating". Mauna22 (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

“AMA Samy, an Indian Zen-teacher, has suggested that Ramana Maharshi may have been autistic, to explain this behaviour (in "Zen Heart, Zen mind"). Quite a different story, isn't it?”

Yes, some people say some things, so? Since when is AMA Samy an authority regarding Ramana Maharsi´s life?

“And Alan Edwards comes to the conclusion, in "Ramana Maharshi and the Colonial Encounter", that the popular (western) image of Ramana as a self-enlighted, "universal" "token of wisdom", was picked up by Indian nationalists in the 1930's and '40's and further popularised, because it fitted into their idealised image of India as a spiritual nation (remember: Ramana was a Tamil Shaiva bhakti, who has come known throughout the world as an Indian Advaita Vedanta jnanin. Anyone who knows just a little bit about Indian (regional) nationalism and religious factionalism, is probably aware of the discrepancies between those two sets of identities)”

Ramana was an Atiasrama, which means he didn´t belong to any caste, creed or community. Indeed, as far as I understood, he cound´t care less about his status even as a person, not to mention nationality. Not a very good choice for a nationalist beacon I´d say. Again your point is: "some people say".

“And of course, this western image was fueled by long-existing romantic western notions of India as a country where long-forgotten ancient wisom was still alive”

“Of course”, which means is false, right? Well, that´s your opinion. Prove it to be wrong in the first place.

“So, who makes the stories, and where is the critical information? For a balanced article, those questions are relevant too, not only the admiration. And don't get me wrong on that: I'm an admirer too. Ramana saved my soul when I was 18. But I'm 44 now, and I have questions about Ramana Maharshi and the context in which he lived and was/is admired, which are not answered by "narratives"”

According to you opinions about Ramana´s life from people who merely meet him at some point like AMA Samy (who is attached to a particular religion) is relevant while the information given by people who lived during years in the proximity of him (and who knew the philosophical context of his teachings) is not reliable... Interesting to say the least.

By the way: you didn´t discuss any of the points people made here up, instead you are bringing third people opinions which only distort the debate. You spend so many time criticizing other people´s work and putting down their words saying there are just opinions with no steady information behind them when, indeed, you are the first one bringing here opinions, not facts or reliable data.

Mauna22 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs) welcome to the discussion. Request check the following for better understanding

• My view point Talk:Ramana_Maharshi#Request_for_advice_from_other_editors
• My friend Joshua's viewpoints Talk:Ramana_Maharshi#Dispute_resolution
• Responses from other editors who have knowledge of the subject of this article.
  • Talk:Ramana_Maharshi#Response_from_Mauna22_to_request_for_advice_from_other_editors
  • Talk:Ramana_Maharshi#Response_from_iddli_to_request_for_advice_from_other_editors

Prodigyhk (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Third opinion by GeorgeLouis

....

Neutrality

It's important to remember that Wikipedia articles are not written just for believers. Articles, such as this one, which have made serious claims of spiritual significance need to be written from an objective point of view. Claiming that he experienced the loss of individual self is not neutral, because that is not a claim which can simply be verified. Any verification of those claims would be subjective, and should be given context. Explaining the historical context of those claims, and what he had to say about those claims is more neutral. Likewise, saying he was "widely acknowledged as one of the outstanding Hindu gurus of modern times" is absolutely a WP:PEACOCK phrase. Saying otherwise is absurd. "Outstanding" is a word which promotes, but does not have a clearly defined meaning. "widely acknowledged" is a WP:WEASEL phrase, because the only source supporting it is the Godman one that dominates the entire article, and cannot be considered impartial. There is so much more work that needs to be done on this article, but hopefully I've explained why I added the peacock tag, and why I have removed much of the more aggressively promotional content from the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Improvement of the teachings

If anyone has the time and motivation (I unfortunately lack the time at the moment) it would be great to clean up and expand the sections on self-enquiry and bhakti. The first is really a mess and needs all sorts of tender, love and care, whilst the section on Bhakti is very weak and underwritten. I would recommend this article as a source for the bhakti section:

[Link to copyrighted material removed, per WP:ELNEVER. Please do not restore unless it can be verified that it is not a copyright violation]

Much obliged in advance!

Bodhadeepika (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Weebly.com is a free website hosting service, which is a red-flag that the site is not a WP:RS. There is not indication of who started that site, or who is running it now. The specific page you link to was written by David Godman, but it's not clear that it was posted with his permission, which is a WP:COPYVIO and is strictly forbidden, per WP:ELNEVER. Please find a better source. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, here is a link to the original article in The Mountain Path. The article is on page 1:

https://ramanafiles.s3.amazonaws.com/mountainpath/1981%20I%20Jan.pdf

Still, needs a wikieditor to read it, believe in it, source it and improve the bhakti section on Ramana's wikipage. Are you that wikieditor? :) Bodhadeepika (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That source is much better, thank you. That PDF is linked from the magazine's website, which satisfies any copyright concerns I had. While not strictly necessary, it would be a good idea to find sources that are more independent of Ramana Maharshi. The magazine put out by his ashram is not neutral about him.

It might be helpful if you could be a bit more specific about what changes you would like to see, but I'm probably not the editor you're looking for. If I were to rewrite it, I would make the self inquiry section much, much shorter, as I think brevity is valuable, and there is much redundancy there. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The self-enquiry is bloated and difficult to read. I would propose shortening yet improving the self-enquiry section, with essential and good information, and expanding the bhakti section with this article as a source. Regarding Ramana, I think I'd struggle to find much that wasn't connected to the ashram, but maybe I'm wrong. Bodhadeepika (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Speaking about coincidence! "Atma-vichara" has been on my mind all night, intending to find out more about it this morning! Regarding the sources: there are hradly any independent sources on Ramana Maharshi; most of it is from devotees. which, of course, are not the most critical sources. Worse, most of them offer an interpretation of Ramana's answers to questions, without being aware that they are an interpretation. Anyway, I gues I'll give it a try. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, good stuff! It strikes me that all the quotes from Nan Yar? would be better placed in Ramana's Wikiquote page rather than here in Ramana's article, with just a few key quotes from Nan Yar? kept for reference and understanding. The part I am referring to is:

• "Of all the thoughts that rise in the mind, the thought 'I' is the first thought."
• "What is called mind is a wondrous power existing in Self. It projects all thoughts. If we set aside all thoughts and see, there will be no such thing as mind remaining separate; therefore, thought itself is the form of the mind. Other than thoughts, there is no such thing as the mind."
• "That which rises in this body as 'I' is the mind. If one enquires 'In which place in the body does the thought 'I' rise first?', it will be known to be in the heart [spiritual heart is 'two digits to the right from the centre of the chest']. Even if one incessantly thinks 'I', 'I', it will lead to that place (Self)'."
• "The mind will subside only by means of the enquiry 'Who am I?'. The thought 'Who am I?', destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre."
• "If other thoughts rise, one should, without attempting to complete them, enquire, 'To whom did they arise?', it will be known 'To me'. If one then enquires 'Who am I?', the mind (power of attention) will turn back to its source. By repeatedly practising thus, the power of the mind to abide in its source increases."
• "Knowledge itself is 'I'. The nature of (this) knowledge is existence-consciousness-bliss."
• "The place where even the slightest trace of the 'I' does not exist, alone is Self."
• "The Self itself is God."

Also, I may have initially entered in the two photos of Ramana sitting and lying in the old hall at too big a size, but surely now they are too small, and more thumbnails than anything else. Can we not find a happy middle point between the two? :) Say 300px? Bodhadeepika (talk) 09:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the quotes to WikiQuotes. As far the image-size: best thing may be not to fix the size; users can set their own preferred size.

Have a look at Talk:Self-enquiry#Scope of article and content about traditional Vedanta; those are interesting comments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Presuming users even know about setting their own preferred sizes, which I imagine 95% don't. Anyhow, thanks for moving the quotes! Bodhadeepika (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:IMGSIZE it's better to use scaling factors, rather than pixels. This isn't as widely practiced as it could be (or I should say, I often forget to do it) but it's still a good habit to get into. Setting it to 300px might look better on some monitors, but on lower-rez ones, or on tablets browsing in web mode, it might be over-sized, while it might still be too small on larger screens. Users might not know how to adjust their preferences, but it's still better to give them the option, and to avoid overriding the settings of those who have figured it out. It's usually better to leave it at the default size when it's practical to do so. Grayfell (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Real Self is awareness

There's a tautology in Godman's quote. Godman says that "all-inclusive awareness" is the real self, that is, "essence" or "real nature." (my words). He also speaks of "permanent and continuous Self-awareness" - that is, paraphrased, ""all-inclusive awareness-awareness." This may the case too, awareness of awareness, but the first term, "all-inclusive awareness," says it all. The term "Self" lends itself too easily to reification, turning this "all-inclusive awareness" into some "thing" again. Pity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I-thought, 'I-I' and real Self

@Bodhadeepika: how about the additons to this section?

@Bodhadeepika: semantic?!? Yeah, I understand what you mean, yet it's the essence. It's not an addendum, it's where it starts! Anyway, this is fine too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I think they are good additions to the teachings. Good stuff! I hadn't read that "Nan-Nan" in Tamil is thought of as "I am I". I knew that Bhagavan had said that "I am that I am" basically sums it all up, but it's nice to find out that aspect in Tamil. And of course, it's not entirely semantics, but you understood what I meant! :) Going through the teachings, I thought that in a way, it might be an idea to move Ramana's "first teaching" in response to his mother about the ordainer from the biographer part to the part on Silence, given that was his first verbal (albeit written) teaching. However, it is also important where it is in the story of his biography. There is a video that I have seen with David Godman where he describes the process of compiling 'Be As You Are', and he says that in doing so, he discovered, while going through all of Ramana's sayings, that Ramana's most common verbal response to seekers was not to tell them to go away and practise self-enquiry, but was instead to answer "you are already enlightened, there is nothing you have to do". That was pretty much his stock answer. However, if the seeker wasn't satisfied that they were already enlightened and needn't attain enlightenment, he would then most probably suggest self-enquiry. Bodhadeepika (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a nice one, 'you're already there' (paraphrase)! Regarding "nan-nan", it's not all; it's the discovery of "sein an Sich." I liked it very much to discover that Ramana said that there's more, that this "nan-nan" disappears, and that "nothing" remains. To which 'you're already there' fits in nice. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit

@User:Joshua Jonathan - Yes, nuance that is better off in the main of the article rather than in the introduction of the article, where people who are not well versed in all of these terms or Ramana himself would be better served by having one term instead of three. Bodhadeepika (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Bodhadeepika, but I really disagree here. I fully understand your point about being concise, but your edit removed crucial information on the difference between realising "I-I", a central term in Ramana's death-experience; "Self-realisation," which is more like an interpretation of Ramana's insight and answers; and mukthi, liberation. They are not the same! By omitting this information, you remove an unique feature of Ramana's insight and answers, and force him into a standard mold of Indian spirituality, instead of focussing on his own unique features. That's a loss.

And you also removed the named explanatory note, which is repeatedly referred to in the body of the article.Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I'm not against having them in the article in the slightest. As I said above, I just think they shouldn't be in the introduction because it's not introductory information, it's detailed information and very good information at that, that is dealt with later on, and would be better placed later on. I didn't mean to remove that note... Anyway, as you wish. All the best! Bodhadeepika (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Bhakti before Awakening

In the section Awakening (1895-1896) I have removed this sentence

Filled with awe, and a desire for emulation, he began devotional visits to the nearby Meenakshi Temple in Madurai and, associated with this bhakti, later reported fever-like sensations.

Reason - This sentence gives a wrong stress to bakthi before Awakening. Sri Ramana mentions that it is only after his spontaneous experiences of Awakening that he was able to experience bhakti completely. Refer http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/ramana-maharshi/death-experience/

One of the features of my new state was my changed attitude to the Meenakshi Temple. Formerly I used to go there occasionally with friends to look at the images and put the sacred ash and vermillion on my brow and would return home almost unmoved. But after the awakening I went there almost every evening. I used to go alone and stand motionless for a long time before an image of Siva or Meenakshi or Nataraja and the sixty-three saints, and as I stood there waves of emotion overwhelmed me.

Request regular editors of this page to review and advice Prodigyhk (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the info. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I would question reliability of the web reference "Arthur Osborne" used. It seems Arthur has got it mixed up on this. Since, Sri Ramana himself has clearly stated that prior to his Awakening experience, the experience of bhakthi as superficial. And it was only after Awakening that he experience bhakthi in waves of emotion. Need a bit more work through on this :) Prodigyhk (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The source was misquoted; it doesn't mention "bhakti" at all, so that was WP:OR. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Although the word bakthi has been removed, The section still indicates deep experience similar to bakthi before Awakening. - a state of blissful consciousness transcending both the physical and mental plane and yet compatible with full use of the physical and mental facultie'.. This is the reason I feel that the source had got it wrong. Since this section Awakening is a very important part of this document, request that we research further on this and edit to reflect the right sequence. Prodigyhk (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that all the stories on his awakening are stories, interpretations by others. "The right sequence" is, I'm afraid, impossible to reconstruct. All we can do is give the information provided by those sources. Which might be a bit of a desillusion: such an inspiring person, yet also the subject of interpretation and "stories"... Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

We have records of Sri Ramana's own narrations about his Awakening, that we can use here. This will ensure that interpretations by other do not misled us and our readers. Prodigyhk (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Those records are not exactly reliable. See the section on "Awakening" in the article. There simply is not a record by Ramana himslef on his awakening. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no record ? Please read record of Sri Ramana's description on his state after Awakening regarding his visit to the Madurai Meenakshi Temple. Refer http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/ramana-maharshi/death-experience/

One of the features of my new state was my changed attitude to the Meenakshi Temple. Formerly I used to go there occasionally with friends to look at the images and put the sacred ash and vermillion on my brow and would return home almost unmoved. But after the awakening I went there almost every evening. I used to go alone and stand motionless for a long time before an image of Siva or Meenakshi or Nataraja and the sixty-three saints, and as I stood there waves of emotion overwhelmed me. Prodigyhk (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Joshua, this page http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/ramana-maharshi/early-life/ on the official page of Ramana Ashram does mention Sri Ramana's experience after reading Periyapuranam. But, does not mention about the experiences at Meenakshi temple before the Death like experience. Suggest we re-edit this paragraph as follows:

A month later he came across a copy of Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam, a book that describes the lives of 63 Saivite saints, and was deeply moved and inspired by it.[12] Filled with awe, and a desire for emulation, he started to experience blissful gratitude. A current of awareness had begun to awaken him, which he then thought was like some kind of pleasant fever. he began to vist ,the nearby Meenakshi Temple in Madurai, where he started to experience "a state of blissful consciousness transcending both the physical and mental plane and yet compatible with full use of the physical and mental faculties".[web 5] Soon after, on July 17, 1896,[12] at age 16, V

Prodigyhk (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - Of course there are records - but not written by himself. All records apparently are influenced by the writers' perception of the chain of events. Soit, so be it. We also don't know who the historical Jesus "really" was.

Regarding the paragraph, if we are to delte a part of it, I'd delete more:

"A month later he came across a copy of Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam, a book that describes the lives of 63 Saivite saints, and was deeply moved and inspired by it.[12] Filled with awe, and a desire for emulation, he started to experience blissful gratitude. A current of awareness had begun to awaken him, which he then thought was like some kind of pleasant fever. He began to vist the nearby Meenakshi Temple in Madurai, where he started to experience "a state of blissful consciousness transcending both the physical and mental plane and yet compatible with full use of the physical and mental faculties".[web 5] Soon after, on July 17, 1896,[12] at age 16, V"

Agree with the modification suggested in this para Prodigyhk (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I happened to see this dialogue and want to clarify something. Prodighyhk, it is always problematic to rely only on one source given that we generally only have subjective accounts of what RM said and it is widely accepted he said different things to different people based on the assessed need and the questioners state. In fact there is a direct account in the biography of his disciple Sri Matha Janaky of a conversation in 1938 where RM stated to her specifically in response to her questions about her pre enlightenment kundalini experiences that his (RMs) experiences at the temple prior to his awakening were associated with what could be considered bhakti and what he later understood was a kundalini awakening; therefore the statement: "Filled with awe, and a desire for emulation, he started to experience blissful gratitude. A current of awareness had begun to awaken him, which he then thought was like some kind of pleasant fever" is probably a far more accurate description. I suggest that David Godman would be a better person to contact to advise about such conflicts and reliable sources given his extensive knowledge as a researcher and librarian than editors over relying on some selected language from the Ashram website when it is not even clear what the context was. 138.163.0.42 (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

In Sri Ramana Leela, one of the three biographies published (and revised) during Ramna´s life (1936), we read:

"Venkataraman who would earlier visit the temple of Meenakshi only on holy days now became a frequent visitor. On seeing the sport of Sundarareswarar painted in the thousand pillared hall Venkataraman “recollected the emotional upsurge experienced about one year ago on hearing the name of Arunachala.” He also was to further recall the life stories of the devotees which could not influence his life then. “I must also be full of bhakti like the Nayanmars, I thought, Easwara, my father at Arunachala, would grant me refuge at his feet. I would frequently visit the temple and in the presence of the images of the Deities and Nayanmars would be beside myself with emotion and would be tear-filled. I did not know what that agony or emotion was due to. All that I would pray for was that the Lord should make me His devotee, or a member of his retinue or one with unswerving devotion…"

Mauna22 (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this is relevant info; would you like to add it to the article? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

How come you are so eager to change something when it coincides with your point of view and how, in the other hand, you are so resistant to make changes when proposals do not coincide with it?

Let me remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so is not like you are the one entitled to allow or deny which information can or can´t be used in it. In other words, this article doesn´t belong to you. Think about it, please. Best, Mauna22 (talk) 09:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

A very collaborative response, to a friendly question. But to answer your question: the standard biographies of Ramana picture him as attaining complete awakening out of the blue. The quote above shows that this awakening may not have been completely out of the blue, nor without a context. I think this is relevant, because it paints a realistic picture, and a "way" within normal human reach, instead of the idealized picture, which may not be in accordance with the facts. The Idealized picture may offer an "example" which may be valuable for the idealized picture as such, but which is out of human reach, if it's not based upon facts but upon an idealization. With other words: I'd like to follow a human example, not a fiction. Fictions offer unattainable goals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you realize that it was me who brought the quote?

As for “Fictions offer unattainable goals”, let me remind you that this an encyclopedia, not a religious site or a means to attain a particular goal other that to provide reliable information. A wrong approach maybe? Best,Mauna22 (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I fully realize that you provided the quote, and I appreciate that. As for my explanation: if you don't like it, then we stick to "provid[ing] reliable information." It's still relevant, for the reasons I already gave before: it offers additional information to the standard, idealized picture. And it is relevant for the question what "awakening" is, and how it can be attained; that question is also relevant when you're not religious, but interested in eastern spirituality. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Questions cropping up"

Moved from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Hi Joshua. That quote is misleading and therefore incorrect. I spotted it yesterday and couldn't figure it out. It contradicts everything else that Bhagavan says. Upon arriving in Arunachala he didn't even know what the concepts of Advaita, Dvaita, and all the other technical terms were. He had no intellectual knowledge of them and he says that on numerous occasions. In fact, it's even cited in other parts of the wikipedia article. Just read the Acquaintance with Hindu Scriptures section. It's impossible that he himself had these questions crop up when he didn't know what these things were nor had any personal need to put his experience into words. That was for other people. Please unrevert your revert. I emailed David Godman about it, to double check, when I saw it, because it was so odd. Here is what he had to say about it in an email to me. He sources a different book:

It's from G. V. Subbaramayya's book, Sri Ramana Reminsicences. The full quote is:

"The next day Sri Bhagavan made a revealing declaration about Himself. He said, “Even in the beginning I realised that I am not the body. After I came to Arunachala all sorts of questions cropped up whether I am one with the All-pervading Reality or different, whether that Reality is Non-dualism, Dualism or qualified Non-dualism etc. Even the idea ‘I am Brahman’ is only a thought and is not Atma-nishtha (Self-abidance). That one should give up all thought and abide in the Self is the conclusion of all religions. Even Nirvikalpa Samadhi is only a stage in ‘Sadhana’ (practice). It implies going into Samadhi and rising from Samadhi. For me there was no necessity at all to do any Sadhana.”"

Taken out of context it might appear that Bhagavan himself is asking the questions, but he is actually referring to questions that are being posed to him.

Bhagavan never needed or used technical vocabulary to define or explain his experience of himself to himself. He said once that he didn't even know what the word Brahman meant until he read it in a book in Tiruvannamalai. The experience was there, but there was never any desire to express it in words or concepts. It was his visitors who wanted him to express it using terminological frameworks that they had read in books.

If you really wish, I will find other sources that contradict and correct this misquote and then remove it, but it would be simpler just to revert the edit. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Bodhadeepika: great! I knew you would come with a very good explanation. Even mailing David Godman; that's cool! Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: thanks Joshua! always a pleasure collaborating with you! :) Bodhadeepika (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Fo the record: I've self-reverted, as you've noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan Watts

Seems a shame to remove it, as it's a great example of the description of a guru, and of Ramana Maharshi, and from a western context by a prominent western philosophy/spiritual lecturer of the 1960s, who was a huge part of the Western spiritual movement. But if it's not wikifriendly, then I don't know... Bodhadeepika (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bodhadeepika. My point is that the quote is rather anecdotical. More relevant, in the context of that paragraph, would be how Alan Watts helped to popularize Ramana Maharshi. The quote as such does not explain this. The quote itself is rather long:

"When you're in the way of waking up, and finding out who you really are, you meet a character called a guru ... You know Sri Ramana Maharshi, that great Hindu sage of modern times? People used to come to him and say, "Master, who was I in my last incarnation?", as if that mattered. And he would say "Who is asking the question?" And he'd look at you and say, basically, "Go right down to it. You're looking at me, you're looking out, and you're unaware of what's behind your eyes. Go back in and find out who you are, where the question comes from, why you ask." And if you've looked at a photograph of that man, I have a gorgeous photograph of him; and you look in those - I walk by it every time I go out of the front door. And I look at those eyes, and the humor in them; the lilting laugh that says "Oh come off it, man (laughs). Shiva, I recognize you. When you come to my door and you say 'I'm so-and-so,' I say, 'Ha ha, what a funny way God has come on today.'""

I've tried to abbreviate it, but it only makes sense as a whole quote. But then, it's too long, I think. The quote can be split in four:

• seekers meet gurus
• Alan Watts calls Ramana Maharshi a great guru
• an example of Ramana Maharshi's way of responding
• a personal impression of photographs of Ramana Maharsi

So, I personally don't think that it is suitable description of a guru; it's rather a somehwat associative, personal 'stream of thought'. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User Joshua Jonathan´s conduct regarding Ramana Maharshi´s article

article talk pages are not places to discuss individual editor's conduct; please take to user talk pages or one of the WP:Dispute Resolution forums. NE Ent 22:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think is a shame to open a thread like this, but I guess is time to do something about it. User Iddli summarized the situation in another thread (above): “...as soon as Joshua Jonathan began editing it [Raman Maharshi´s Article], any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible.[...] Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him, rules the page with an iron fist, and makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors yet aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors). The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem...” I utterly endorse Iddli´s commentary. I would like to know what is the best course of action in a situation like this, and would appreciate other editors counsel and advice. Best, Mauna22 (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Start with reading Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Included options are one of the notice-boards, like WP:ANI or Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, where you can explain your grievances, with a list of diffs to support your stance. You can also contact an administrator, like User:Doug Weller or SpacemanSpiff. Otherwise, you may consider some self-reflection: why is it that you want your preferred edits to prevail? To answer some of the points of above: "any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible" See the thread above, Talk:Ramana Maharshi#Questions cropping up, which contradicts this statement. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Journey to Tiruvannamalai, Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Stillness - samadhi, and Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2#Jung-quote for some other examples. "Impossible" seems to be a misplaced qualification. See, on the other hand, Talk:Ramana Maharshi#Bhakti before Awakening, where I wrote, in response to Manua22, "I think this is relevant info; would you like to add it to the article?", to which Mauna22 responded "How come you are so eager to change something when it coincides with your point of view and how, in (sic) the other hand, you are so resistant to make changes when proposals do not coincide with it?" Not exactly an example of a collaborative spirit, was it? It's in a thread where Prodigyhk and I agreed after some discussion; "Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him" - I've made over 500 edits to this page; most of them were additions of info, and meticulous work on details such as the publications. I also provided sources for unsourced info provided by Iddli. A good example of collaboration and constructive improvements; "rules the page with an iron fist" - that's a subjective statement, which needs explanation and explication; "makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors" - the normal procedure is to edit the page. When you object, you can start a discussion at the talkpage. If you think I've failed here somehow, you'll have to provide diffs; "aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda" - there's a long series of edits I haven't touched upon, nor objected to. In case I've got objections, I do voice them; that's the normal procedure. Regarding the term "aggressive," it seems an apt qualification of your own tone, as exemplified by your response quoted above, and this thread itself; "his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors)" - if you mean that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of webpages written by devotees, yes, that's an agenda - which fits in with the objctives of Wikipedia. See also Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 3#Neutrality, where this issue was raised before, by another editor; "The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem..." - a talkpage is intended to discuss the article; looking back I see a lot of discussion. If the problem is that I don't agree with some of your edits or POV, no that problem won't be solved if you expect me to simply agree with you. Nevertheless, many discussions have been resolved at the talkpage, as can be seen at the talkpage-threads which I linked to at "problematic." Regarding opening this thread: the talkpage is meant to discuss the article, not the behaviour of other editors. Opening a thread like this does not seem to be the best avenue. A better way would be to adress me personally, instead of simply talk over my head to others. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I brought my complaints to the Notice Board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joshua_Jonathan_disruptive_editing_on_Ramana_Maharshi.C2.B4s_article Mauna22 (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I'll have a look. NB: don't forget to mention that I answered your query above, ointing you the way to the notice-board. Another example of collaboration, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I have been silent too long myself. I have watched this article deteriorate and must agree 110% about Jonathan's arrogant, arbitrary and non-collaborative approach to impose his evident personal agenda as to what is relevant and what is not. I see no evidence of particular expertise on the subject but only a personal agenda. "Lets talk?" has no meaning when is it is just words, Jonathan. Enough is enough. Dseer (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC) As a typical example of the damage to which this non-collaborative editor Jonathan is willing to do to push his views, see this statement he recently back put in: "Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised [sic] in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students." That is of course total opinion that "neo-Advaita" conforms accurately to Ramana's teachings since Ramana even had a problematic relationship with traditional Advaita, and it is a claim widely disputed as well as conflicting with the rest of the article. A close reading of Ramana's words in context shows little evidence that would support such a claim at best. Poonja himself dismissed the neo-Advaitan's claims of enlightenment in an interview with David Godman. We need an end to iron-handed editing by fiat and genuine consensus building. Which will require reigning in this rogue editor. Dseer (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC) References I took an impartial look at the history of this article, and I agree with and support Joshua Jonathan. Dseer, you might be a single purpose account. VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Noted, Victoria. Unlike you I provided a specific example of distorted editing which I can back up with references. Unlike you I stick to areas of expertise as well. Not that I really think Wikipedia will do anything; unfortunately. Dseer (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan Edwards and Orientalism

Objections to Alan Edwards

While the claim of Alan Edwards that Ramana was not an Advaitin is well documented and is supported by testimonies, his alleged demonstration of Ramana´s political vantage point is not documented or supported by any evidence whatsoever, not to mention the context in which this political views are placed. He goes as far as to “demonstrate” that Ramana was sympathetic with the political views of Ganapati Muni for the sole reason that he did not rebuffed him:

“The longevity of their relationship, coupled with no available evidence that Ramana attempted to distance himself from Ganapati or his political followers, demonstrates that Ramana was at least sympathetic to, if not supportive of, Ganapati‟s political agenda.”

A claim rather embarrassing if we consider that the person we are talking about -Ramana Maharshi, was available for everyone at any time and was, at the same time, characterised for being silent.

Edward´s views of “orientalism” are as well far from be steady demonstrations of anything in spite of his own claims (he uses the expression “I demonstrated...” like 20 times in the document). Herein my query. Who is Alan Edwards and why should this information be used in this article? The fact that the document is a “thesis” doesn´t mean the information it contains is accurate or correct. I suggest removing his quotation and the link to his thesis in the “Further Reading” section since the later is not relevant as far as this article is concerned, and the former is just an opinion with no data or evidence to support it Mauna22 (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the link to the thesis, see WP:FURTHER, on "Further reading": "An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." Why would a critical analysis of Ramana Maharshi not be relevant to a Wiki-article about Ramana Maharshi, other than WP:DONTLIKEIT? See also WP:BELONG.

The quote is relevant because it points to the context in which the image of Ramana Maharshi as an enlightened saint flourished, and the possibility that scholarship may be influenced by this adoration. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a given analysis talks about a particular subject -in this cae Ramana Maharshi- doesn´t mean that it must necessarily be included in the article; that is a fallacy, please see: affirming the consequent. As for your suggestion that the only reason why I propose to remove the link is that “I don´t like it”, please see: ad hominem. Which, ironically -and since you do not give actual data or offer a counterargument to my claims (see: WP:ITSUSEFUL)- leads me to think that the only reason why you what to keep the link is that is tallies with your idea of Ramana and Hinduism, so please, see: WP:ILIKEIT.

We should look forward to improve the article, offering data, giving suggestions, and cleaning it from spurious or defective information. For this we should use reliable data and logical argumentation, not opinions and much less fallacies. Please see: WP:PPOV

Having said this, let´s see what other colleagues have to say about it Mauna22 (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Alan Edwards "help[s] interested readers [to] learn more about the article subject" because he provides a critical analysis of Ramana Maharshi and the context in which he was celebrated. This context, and also the critical attitude, is missing from most sources on him, which are written by devotees. That may suffice for a fansite, but not for an encyclopedia. So, why do you think that he is not relevant for readers? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Basically the main point of the thesis (and of the quote used in the WP article) depends on the premise exemplified in the quotation above mentioned. Is not just that its impossible to be demonstrated: the argumentation is absolutely faulty.

As I said, let´s see what the others have to say about it. Mauna22 (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are those sources who criticize Ramana Maharshi for a number of reasons, including that his state was delusional, what is seen as fatalism, on religious grounds, that he failed to take moral stands and seemed strangely detached on some world issues and believed there were greater powers governing the world, even that he was a tool of alien consciousness, etc. But I fail to see how claims by Alan Edwards that his failure to disassociate himself from political followers demonstrates political views has any particular value here. Ramana was distinguished by his openness to people of all sorts of views, his tolerance, his patience even when being hit by a thief, and his tailoring his responses to their perspectives to the point where there is seeming literal contradiction. It is well known that Gandhi sent some of his associates to Ramana Maharishi and that in response to questions about independence Ramana correctly predicted India would gain independence. But Ramana's attitude is best demonstrated by when people came to him to complain about perceived unfairness in the running of his Ashram and where he replied in so many words by questioning whether they had come to reform themselves or the Ashram. His responses to the first Westerner, a policeman who saw him back in 1911, offer no evidence of the orientalism during this period claimed. I do not see why we would add such poorly supported criticism based on his failure to distance himself from some followers just to have some criticism or how it would benefit casual readers. Dseer (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of Alan Edwards' paper is in the connection he makes with neo-Vedanta, and the position given to Ramana Maharshi in this worldframe:

"Recent scholarship on Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950) follows the romanticism of hagiographical literature, presenting him as a purely spiritual and timeless figure, thus ignoring the political contours of colonial India. Scholarly literature, then, has effectively deracinated this internationally acclaimed figure from one of the most fascinating and transformative historical periods of the modern era. The current study seeks to correct ahistorical representations of Ramana Maharshi by considering the historical processes that determined his status as a Maharshi (Great Vedic Seer) and Advaitin. I aim to show that Ramana Maharshi‟s image as a timeless and purely spiritual figure actually locates him in his historical situation, and further, that his status as a Maharshi (Maharṣi) and Advaitin reflects the ways in which „the political‟ and „the spiritual‟ interacted during colonial India. This thesis will delineate the process by which Ramana‟s status as a Maharshi allowed his religious identity to shift from an unorthodox, localised, and ethnic-sectarian form to one in which he symbolised a religious authority in an orthodox and pan-Hindu way. In a broader context, then, this thesis seeks to address the following question: how, and to what extent, did colonial dynamics affect the ways that Hindus interpreted and represented their religious figures during the nationalist period? Here I will demonstrate that Ramana Maharshi represents a compelling case study in the ways in which Orientalist stereotypes about a „mystical East‟ affected the intersection of politics and religion in colonial India." (p.ii)

Alan Edwards rightly asks why Ramana Maharshi is portrayed the way he is. He concludes:

"Ramana‟s status as an Advaitin should be seen as an elitist construct that owed much to the Vedanticisation process and the interaction between nationalist discourse and Hindu spirituality – a claim that sharply contrasts the popular and scholarly assumption that it accurately reflected his transformative experience at sixteen. The Vedanticisation process relied on the initial efforts and assumptions of early Orientalists as well as the proceeding strategies of key Hindu reformers. This process produced a powerful religious symbol – Advaita Vedānta – which represented the highest doctrine of a single, homogenous religion. Apart from simultaneously functioning in a religious and political way, Advaita Vedānta followed the Maharshi construct in that it reflects the trend of Hindu reformers to conceive of Hinduism in terms of Vedic and Upaniṣadic ideals rather than in popular forms of bhakti such as Tamil Śaivism. It also speaks of the tendency of Hindu figures of the colonial period to emphasise doctrine, philosophy and a universal religious experience instead of ritual, worship and anything related to a „superstitious‟ polytheistic worldview." (p.97-98)

As you may know, neo-Vedanta portrays India as an essentially 'spiritual country', using western/Oriental images to posite India against western dominance. This is a central issue in scholarship; Alan Edwards has applied this to Ramana Maharshi. That makes him relevant. You may disagree with his conclusions, or be unaware of this larger Indian context and the process of Vedanticisation, but it does not change the fact that his thesis is written within the larger context of contemporary Indological concerns, and points to the change of Ramana's image from a Tamil Shiva bhakti into an universal Advaita Vedanta teacher. As noted before, a further reading section provides links to relevant further reading; Alan Edwards is such reading. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

“Alan Edwards is such reading”, well, that is your opinion. So far I and @Dseer have a different one, as you can see.

One more time: please let others express their opinion regarding this subject. Thanks Mauna22 (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, you couldn't wait any longer for opinions, meanwhile igonoring the arguments? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Ignoring the arguments? Yeah, right... How much time you think is necessary to change it? Mauna22 (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Mauna22 and Dseer. And I don't think the word scholarship quite applies to Edwards' jargon-laden musings. (Iddli (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC))

And why do you agree? This is a discussion, not a vote-count. Let me repeat my argument: Wikipedia "describe[s] multiple points of view." Alan Edwards contextualises Ramana Maharshi, referring to contemporary strands of thought in the scholarship on Indian religions and the questioning of Oriental notions and the need for a post-colonial approach to the understanding of India. That makes him relevant. He provides a context that the publications from devotees don't provide. See also Richard King; Orientalism and Religion, for the influence of orientalism in the understanding of Indian religions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Note also that Edwards is not being referred in the article for any remarks on any "alleged demonstration of Ramana´s political vantage point," but on the influence of Orientalism on the perception of Ramana Maharshi. Mauna22 himself acknowledges that "the claim of Alan Edwards that Ramana was not an Advaitin is well documented and is supported by testimonies." Richard King's "Orientalism and Religion" is just one of many sources on the influence of Orientalism and western religion c.q. western esotericism on Indian religions, and the western perception of those religions. See also De Michelis, The Origins of Modern Yoga. It's an influence which seems to be unknown, and therefo quite surprising, to many people. Nevertheless, given this acknowledgement by Mauna22, and the multitude of sources on these influences, Edwards notion of Orientalist influences on the perception of Ramana Maharshi, can hardly be called problematic. Focusing on Edwards' conclusions regarding Ramana's political vantage point side-tracks the discussion on what is actually being mentioned in the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'v eu st read through Edwards' conclusions again; yes, great thesis, in line with contemporary scholarship on the construction of an Indian identity based on spirituality. See also Neo-Vedanta and the publications by Rajiv Malhotra for the importance and influence of this identity.
I've adjusted the info from Edwards, emphasizing the importance of this spiritual identity in opposition to the Brirtish colonial rule. See also Swami Vivekananda, a freedom-fighter who gave an extremely popular interpretation of India's spirirtuality, and aided in this construction of an Indian identity as the center of a timeless, universal spirituality, superior to western materialism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Edwards´ thesis is slapdash, untidy, and overall its teleological, which is the opposite of academic.

The reasons why you are so concerned about other people opinions (because they might be biased) and yet you fail to see this is over me.

In spite that I already asked you three times to calm down and let people express themselves about this issue, you keep on coming up every time someone says something that is not in line with your opinion, and you repeat the same arguments over and over. You see, is not like don´t get your point, is simply that we don´t agree with it. Get over it, please. Your attitude is being a bit derogatory already.

One more time: please, let others express themselves freely Mauna22 (talk) 08:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop asking to "let others express themselves freely". I don't stop them from doing so, do I? You merely ask me not to respond. Talkpages are meant to provide the possibility to respond to each other. Note, again, that the issue is not Ramana Maharshi's political POV. The issue is the way(s) Ramana Maharshi was seen as the exemplary embodiment of a constructed modern Indian identity, namely as a timeless, spirituality superior country. That thesis makes sense in the context of colonialism, the ongoing struggles over Indian identity(ies), and scholarly debates over the construction of Indian identy(ies). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed you do. Look at the thread, look at how you respond to each and every commentary that is not in your line, repeating again and again the same arguments that we din´t even buy the first time you exposed them.

Such attitude is discouraging for editors. We don´t feel like change anything here because we know we will face obstinate opposition in case you don´t share our opinion. And is strange by the way because when you want to change something it seems you don´t have to ask permission to anyone.

You are acting as a PPOV pusher over and over, not only in this threat but in the whole article, and the truth is that this is not your article, and your opinion is not the only one that counts. Mauna22 (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I very strongly agree with what Mauna22 has said above about how discouraging it is to attempt to edit the Ramana Maharshi article. I worked on this article for years. I have read dozens of books about Ramana Maharshi and used to very much enjoy collaborating with other editors on this article. However, as soon as Joshua Jonathan began editing it, any kind of genuine collaboration became impossible. After repeated attempts to continue working on the page, I finally gave up. Joshua Jonathan reverts any and all edits which do not suit him, rules the page with an iron fist, and makes extensive changes without the agreement of other editors yet aggressively demands that other editors defend to him any changes they make that do not suit him or fit his agenda (which he pushes strongly, despite objections from other editors). The talk page is ruled in exactly the same style so moving discussions over here never seems to solve this problem. I, for one, would very much welcome Joshua Jonathan taking an extended break from editing (controlling) this article so other past (and, I hope, new) editors can freely contribute and collaborate. (Iddli (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC))

Just read the next section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I´m going to summarize this protracted thread (as for the situation with Joshua Jonathan see new threat below).

I suggested to remove Edward´s link and quotation on the grounds that is poorly written and teleological. Arguments about it both in support and otherwise (above) have been stated. User Iddli and user Dseer agree with the proposition while user Joshua Jonathan doesn´t.

If there´s no change here whatsoever I´ll proceed in the next few days.

Best, Mauna22 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't adressed the issue at stake here: you object to Edwards' statements on Ramana Maharshi's political stance, while that info is not in the article. The info in the article is on how Ramana Maharshi was seen as the embodiment of a timeless spirituality, which served the formation of an Indian identity in opposition to the British rulers. This thesis is in line with contemporary scholarship on India, such as Richard King and De Michelis. Objecting to this info by referring to another topic which is not in the article is a straw-argument. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Mauna22, I urge you to go ahead and make changes based on your sound and carefully reasoned arguments given higher up in this section. You clearly explained the reason for your proposed edits and I look forward to seeing them. (Iddli (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC))

No, please don't. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Three against and one for doesn't establish consensus. and if Wikipedia worked that way it would be an open invitation to sock puppetry. The article's already had that problem in the past, let's not go down that road again, alright? The quote seems fine, and the point is itself supported by additional sources. Providing historical and scholarly context is exactly what an encyclopedia article should do. Grayfell (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. As far as this page is concerned is a tyranny.

One user overrules an article for years and the moment complaints are raised those who are questioned and investigated are the ones that raised the complaints: unbelievable.Mauna22 (talk) 06:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Adress the arguments I raised, or we'll meet again at a notice-board. I have clearly explained, several times, why Edwards is relevant to this article: because he explains how the framing of Ramana Maharshi fits into the development of an Indian counter-identity. This argument has nowhere been answered.

I have also noted several times that the info in the article is on that part of Edwards' thesis, while you want to remove it because of Edwards' comments on Ramana Maharshi's supposed political stance (which I, too, find unconvincing). This concern too has not been answered.

Instead, the lot of you use terms like;

• "just an opinion with no data or evidence to support it" - incorrect; the whole thesis provides his analysis;
• "fallacies" that's a personal opinion;
• "jargon-laden musings" - what's the jargon?
• "teleological" - that one is really interesting, and I'd like to hear more about this, apart from our disagreements: what do you mean with teleological?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"I have clearly explained, several times, why Edwards is relevant to this article: because he explains how the framing of Ramana Maharshi fits into the development of an Indian counter-identity. This argument has nowhere been answered."

Take a look at WP:ITSUSEFUL that sums it all up, provided you are willing to understnad such evident case, which you are not, of course...Mauna22 (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It sums it up indeed: " Just saying something is useful or useless without providing explanation and context is not helpful or persuasive in the discussion. Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless." I've explained, several times, why Edwards is relevant. I've also provided the context. You still haven't answered to this argument. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Now you admitted that the thesis uses fallacies: "...is a fallacy. Well, we agree on that."

What kid of academic rigor can we expect from a thesis that uses fallacies to elaborate its propositions? Mauna22 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you should read the thesis, instead of picking out one proposition you don't agree with. Read the quotes above again from the intro, to understand what it is about: "Ramana's status as an Advaitin should be seen as an elitist construct that owed much to the Vedanticisation process and the interaction between nationalist discourse and Hindu spirituality – a claim that sharply contrasts the popular and scholarly assumption that it accurately reflected his transformative experience at sixteen." The main topic of the trhesis is not Ramana Maharshi's political stance, but the way his "image" was constructed. I can really recommand Richard King's "Orientalism and religion" to you, or De Michelis "The history of modern yoga," to get a grip on the scholarshop Edwards is referring to. It is for this context and scholarship that Edwards is relevant. Maybe you should also read something on social-construcionism, and Michel Foucault, to understand how our "reality" is a constructed reality. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The wikipedia rule on the use of a Master's thesis as a source states that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." This much debated (here) Alan Edwards thesis does not appear to fit that condition. I tried googling Alan Edwards; thesis and there is no evidence of it influencing anything significant or scholarly. Its influence appears to be limited to a disagreement on this page! (Iddli (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

@Iddli: fair point, thanks. Consider, though, also this:

• "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article."
• "Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context."
• "if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence" - there is no scholarly research on Ramana Maharshi, except fort he two articles by Lucas. That makes his thesis exceptional: one of the few instances of serious academic interest in Ramana Maharshi.

As far as I can see, this source is reliable for the statement being made. It elaborates on existing scholarship, which it ecplicitly mentions. To reject it purely on the ground of it being a master-thesis, without weighting it's relevance and assessing its reliablility for the statement beong made, is precisely the kind of "legalistic" approach you reject. I think it's worth to consider that merits of inclusion. And if it doesn't fit there for this reason (for which I would like to see arguments, based on this scholarship on which this scholarship elaborates), then it can still be included in the "External links" section, for the same reason already stated: Edwards provides a broader view on Ramana Maharshi's popularity. But to repeat: fair point. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"As far as I can see, this source is reliable for the statement being made." That´s the very point at debate. Please, stop using fallacies to defend your arguments Mauna22 (talk) 09:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Teleological

Yeah, "teleological" is an unusual description here, I'm also curious about that. Grayfell (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. I already gave a clear example of that, but anyway, I´ll repeated, and I´ll try to be more clear.

Bear in mind this to facts:

• Fact 1: Ramana Maharshi was known for being silent.
• Fact 2: Nowhere in the classical biographies on RM would you find any reference to a political POV of his, and which is more: you wouldn´t even find Ganapati Muni´s political views in those books (it seems the people who wrote them where not concerned with that).

Now, read this pearl of wisdom:

“The longevity of their relationship, coupled with no available evidence that Ramana attempted to distance himself from Ganapati or his political followers, demonstrates that Ramana was at least sympathetic to, if not supportive of, Ganapati‟s political agenda.”

Which comes down to:

RM never rebuffed GM, therefore RM supported or at least was sympathetic whit the political views of GM.

Yes: absolutely teleological. This is just an example, there are more, and what is worse, he elaborates further his theories based in fallacies like this one (that stands for messy and slapdash to say the least).

Alan Edwards, like Joshua Jonathan (are they the same person?) sees what he whants to see, and he builds his thesis with an agenda in mind. He wants us to believe there´s an evil scheme to make India look as the holiest country on earth, and he has no remorse in twisting facts and using clumsy fallacies to demonstrate so.

Did you notice how many times he “demonstrates this and that”? Have you ever read a thesis with such self-references? Is not just that he is being teleological: is it absolutely graceless at doing so!

If after reading the thesis and this thread as well you really fail to see how politically driven this thesis is I don´t know what else to say.

Best, Mauna22 (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Teleological: "Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal.[1] For example, a teleological explanation of why forks have prongs is that this design helps humans eat certain foods; stabbing food to help humans eat is what forks are for." I'm sorry, but I utterly fail to see how Edwards is "teleological."
• No, we're not the same person. Remember WP:GOODFAITH.
• "He wants us to believe there´s an evil scheme to make India look as the holiest country on earth" - if you had any serious knowledge of the recent scholarshop on the history of India, then you would know that this "evil scheme" is exactly what neo-Vedantins and other freedom-fighters were doing: presenting India as "the holiest country on earth." See, again, Richard King, just for example. Or Edwards' thesis. This is common academic knowledge, not some sort of fringe theory, as you seem to suppose. It was not an "evil scheme," by the way, but a sincere reaction to western oppression, and a elaboration of western views of India as the bearer of a timeless wisdom. Indian independence, and Indian identities, may be irrelevant for you, as a westerner, but they are absolutely relevant for Indians, and for the understanding of the framing of Indian religions. If you had more experience at India-related articles, you would know that.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if what you say were true (and I´m not saying it is), it doesn´t keep it from being teleological. You have a serious problem of reading comprehension Mauna22 (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you're using the wrong term. That makes it indeed hard to understand what you mean with "teleological." What you mean is that the reasoning "RM never rebuffed GM, therefore RM supported or at least was sympathetic with the political views of GM" is a fallacy. Well, we agree on that. I don't find that argument convincing either. But I still fail to see how that is "teleological." Going through the fallacy-page, don't you mean something like affirming the consequent? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clarification for JJ:

No. Affirming the consequence is what you´ve been doing since the Alan Edwards section was opened:

• If Edwards thesis´ is correct when it says X then is relevant for the article
• Edwards thesis is relevant for the article
• Therefore, Edwards thesis is correct when it says X

Note that X = “Ramana Maharshi´s case is a good example of how neo-Vedantins and other freedom-fighters present India as the holiest country on earth”

As a suggestion -for both sections of the thread- I would recommend you to take your time and re-read them as many times as you need, take another look at the definition of teleology you yourself posted... whatever. Read carefully, please. It is pointless that you repeat over and over the same arguments adding paragraphs over and over and question this and that when you dodn´t even bother yourself getting other people´s arguments to begin with. Is really unproductive.

Best regards, Mauna22 (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Interesting way of reasoning you've got. I'm trying 'to get it', but I don't, I'm afraid. The definition of teleology I quoted says "Teleology is a reason or explanation for something in function of its end, purpose, or goal." So, did Ramana Maharshi exist for a certain purpose? Or does Edwards' thesis exist for a certain purpose? Or do you mean to say that my reasoning (as you perceive it) is teleological? No, you wrote "Edwards´ thesis is slapdash, untidy, and overall its teleological". So, what "something" exactly did exist according to Edwards, serving which "end, purpose, or goal" ? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I took another look at affirming the consequent. It gives the following example:

"If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.

Bill Gates is rich

Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox."

You're giving a qualified proposition in the first line: "If Edwards thesis´ is correct when it says X then is relevant for the article." No wonder your logic is so hard to follow. A proper example along this line of reasoning would be:

• If Edwards thesis´ gives an explanation for the presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin, then it is relevant for the article
• Edwards thesis is relevant for the article
• Therefore, Edwards thesis´ gives an explanation for the presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin

I think that it's abundantly clear that this is not a proper example of affirming the consequent, nor is it a proper representation of my argument. My argument is:

• If Edwards thesis´ gives an explanation for the presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin, then it is relevant for the article
• Edwards thesis´ gives an explanation for the presentation of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin (elaborating on, and in line with, contemporary scholarship on the construction of Indian identities and the role of spirituality in the construction of those identities)
• Therefore, Edwards thesis´ is relevant for the article.

Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You are keeping X out. No wonder your find trouble gettint it.

By the way: still no proof whatsoever that the thesis is not teleologic. Actually you endorsed my statement when you admitted Edwards´s work is faulty. Mauna22 (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

'Can you elaborate, please?' Or is this all you have to say? Mauna22 (talk) 06:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A shared working relationship and agenda, limited actual knowledge of the subject in this case and unfortunately no desire to seriously discuss how much to highlight an obscure thesis. Of course. Best to just put NPOV tag on the article because consensus is impossible. Not that the Edwards reference concerns me much.

There is a published view that Advaita and "enlightenment" itself is a fraud created by possession by power hungry beings, specifically referencing Ramana Maharshi. That view deserves equal treatment as far as being referenced. To quote the author:

Wall of text

Consider this quote by the currently popular guru, Ramana Maharshi: “Repetition aloud of His name is better than praise. Better still is its faint murmur. But the best is repetition within the mind — and that is meditation. Better than such broken thought is its steady and continuous flow like the flow of oil or of a perennial stream.” Ramana Maharshi’s statement represents mantra meditation’s goal: a state where the mind is timelessly identified with surrender to the name of one’s god – identical with the god himself. The mind itself has become self-negation at the feet of the deity. Empty of original thought and dynamic desire, the “liberated” person’s ego is dissolved: the very thing that made him or her human. All that is left is a mind-body shell, a meat-robot, that moves through life as a surrendered instrument of some greater will. I suggest the greater will is not that of the Infinite. It is the will of the god who has taken the place of one’s mind... Does this sound like possession? It surely appears to be. Think of all the gurus you’ve met with their palpable shakti. An energy so real no one who experiences it can deny it. What is that light in their eye, a light beyond this world? Whose is that power they touch you with, embrace you with? Is it the shakti of Brahman, the light of pure consciousness? Or is it the power of Kali or one of her friends? Gurus often say they are the embodiment of Shiva, Kali, or some other god. Why do we not take them at their word? I would like to suggest that mantra meditation turns humans into zombies who serve the agenda of the gods. That agenda is procurement of more humans and more human energy. This explains the common phenomenon of proselytizing by the religious, including fundamentalist Christians, TMers, and disciples of other varieties. Servants of “God” or the gods feel a driving need to bring in more recruits. The god that moves through them fills them with this zeal, as a hungry stomach fills the mind with an overwhelming need to procure dinner. There are no gods, in the sense the gods would have us think of them. No one has been designated by the Infinite to control creation and administer the laws of nature. The sun shines by itself as an entity with its own consciousness. The rain and wind don’t need a god to direct them; they move where they will in harmony with their fellow elements. All things are children of the Infinite, spirits or egos in their own unique right, expressing in physical form and also in astral dimensions. The gods are spirits/egos like everybody else. Most of the time they dwell on astral planes, which is why human senses normally don’t perceive them. According to ancient records, they have visited the earth in ages past in physical forms of their own, as entities from the stars. They are no more divine than a ghost, no more cosmic than you or I, and no more entitled or intended to run the universe than any other gang of warlords might be. Somehow they’ve gained control of this planet, and have held that control at least since the beginning of recorded human history. But that is no reason to think the Infinite wants it that way, or that life needs to continue that way. True empowerment is not the Indian concept of enlightenment. It is knowing what we are and living from there. We are spirit: individual and eternal, moving within the consciousness of That which created, sustains and pervades all life. Knowing this is not difficult. It only requires putting attention on that which is beneath the content of thought. Acting from this place of empowerment is natural: we can ordain reality from that quantum level. Everyone can do it. Everyone is equally powerful moving and creating in the depths of their own consciousness. Unfortunately, people rarely do that, though, as the mass hypnosis that governs human life convinces us that karma, fate or the will of God runs the world, that we as individuals have little direct control over what happens to us. The gods are the purveyors of this global hypnosis. It serves their agenda of control. True liberation does not mean rising above the illusion of ourselves as egos. It means rising above the illusion that as egos we are cut off from the powerhouse of creation. That as individuals we are something less than pure, eternal, powerful spirits – in our own right, very much gods. Gods with a global case of amnesia. The “enlightened” have surrendered their personhood to the deities who control their meditations. Their bliss is the euphoric stupor which their appeased deities grant them as reward. The words, the thoughts, the desires of the enlightened are not their own any longer, but those of their controlling god. The word “zombie” is appropriate because of its meaning as the walking dead. But all is not lost for such people. No one can keep the human soul enslaved against its will. An act of personal empowerment, of willfully recalling one’s ego, must surely destroy enslavement by any possessing entity. One can recall surrendered pieces of one’s being as a magnet can recall iron filings. Native American traditions speak of our ability to do just this, calling back the parts of our lost personhood. When people cease to surrender their energy and spirit to those who call themselves gods, the deceivers will lose their power over this dimension. They will shrink back to “normal size,” entities responsible for themselves like everybody else. Our world will know a freedom, creativity, harmony and joy it has never demonstrated in its history, because interdimensional manipulation will cease. The suffering on this planet, god-inspired and god-feeding, will dwindle and disappear. The need to kill to eat will no longer exist. Sickness, aging and death will have no substructure. Each wonderful created being – animal, human or astral – will thrive on the power of the Infinite source within itself, and victim/tyrant relationships, which ran the planet for eons, will fade into thin air. Living will become what surely the Infinite intended in Its original vision for the universe: a symphony of minds, not a competition; a tapestry of spirits, not a hierarchy; a garden of consciousness, not a painful struggle. When I hear “the enlightened” excuse all the atrocities of this world by saying that in their exalted perception, everything is “perfect” just as it is, I hear “fraud.” The God I perceive in the depths of my being is not a God who is content with fathers raping infants, animals being ripped apart alive, or human sorrow so great only suicide can quell it. This kind of world is not perfect, and anyone who sees it as such has something seriously wrong with them. If the gods were really beneficent and powerful, they would not operate a world that runs like this. When their mouthpieces and procurers tell us this world is just as it should be – that shows you the true nature of the gods. https://brontebaxter.wordpress.com/mantra-meditation-reveals-a-hidden-agenda-are-the-gods-alive-and-well-and-working-towards-the-new-world-order.

Dseer (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If this tl:dr copypasta is supposed to be some sort of "Modest Proposal" it demonstrates both poor faith and poor understanding of sources and scholarship on Wikipedia. If you seriously think this should be included in the article, the answer is no, because it's WP:SPS discussing a fringe perspective. Grayfell (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You're taking a quote out of context; you should also mention what this context is. It's about TM, and the critique is directed against TM. It may be interesting on its own merits, but it's not comparable to Edwards, who provides a context (one; there are several) for the popularity of Ramana Maharshi. Et cetera. You're bypassing the arguments here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Improving this article

I would like to see this article focus more tightly on its subject, Ramana Maharshi. When we start adding sections like "Indian Context" and "Western Context", we open a real can of worms. An example of this is the quotes by Jung and the interpretation of these quotes (under "Indian Context". Jung is certainly a famous figure and the quotes are from legitimate sources so one could argue that of course it is fair to include them. But this invites an expansion of this section of the article to include the deeper reasons why Jung so carefully avoided meeting Ramana Maharshi (for Jung's fear of another mental breakdown, and Jung's possible fear of being exposed as a fraudulent guru if he were to stand before a genuine guru, etc). The way the article currently reads, it appears that Jung is rather loftily dismissing Ramana Maharshi as not being worth visiting, when, quite likely, Jung was simply trying to defend his own rather puzzling behavior and conceal his fear of recurring mental illness. Yet do we really want to get into the whole business of Jung's psychosis and vulnerabilities in the middle of an article on Ramana Maharshi? My own preference would be to drop these sections. The Jung details don't really provide a "context"; Jung's avoidance of Ramana Maharshi and the complex reasons for this avoidance say a great deal about Jung, and very little about Ramana Maharshi. Here is an interesting analysis of this: http://wasylnimenko.org/jung-and-the-holy-men-of-india-yoga-and-advice-about-eastern-spiritual-disciplines/

This brings me to a second point. How can we collaborate on what should and what should not be included in the article? I do not think the criteria should simply be that a source can be found for it. I think the main point of the article should be to provide a clear, readable description of Ramana Maharshi.

I propose deleting the "Context" sections as, in my opinion, they detract rather than add to the article. Some of the content is too general to add value ("Since the 1970s western interest in Asian religions has seen a rapid growth."), some is provocative and controversial ("Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students."), and some --like the Jung part I mentioned above) -- is misleading because it accepts Jung's "cover story" at face value and completely leaves out what were likely the real reasons for Jung avoiding Ramana Maharshi. (Iddli (talk) 01:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

I agree with you in deleting the “Context” section. It is clearly contrived, and you won´t find something of the kind in articles about other relevant people. The fact is that the sources and the actual information we have about RM talk about him as a good person so to speak. I´m not saying here the man was saint or something, I´m just referring what the sources say, and they basically so, like it or not.

Unfortunately this is the main point of user:Joshua Jonathan concerns. To place RM in a very particular context. Supposedly adding criticism when what he actually is doing is bringing some vilification in order to show the world the real an accurate picture of whom that RM actually was.

Of course in order to that and since he has no actual sources that support his thesis he has to use very general and controversial material, third opinions and obscure works under the premise that they “academic”, Alan Edwards thesis is clear example of this. Same with what has happened with Papaji and Jung.

This is not gonna be solved here as you know, he would carry on his agenda and even find support from friend users. I raised the issue of his disruptive editing to the Notice Board as you know, but I´m afraid is gonna be of little use either.

Anyway, appreciate your effort bringing here your opinion in spite of all this problems. Best, Mauna22 (talk) 07:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So you dismiss a study published by the New Zealand Asian Studies Society as being too flimsy, but propose a personal blog post as a reason to equivocate about commentary by Carl Jung? Come on now. A case can be made here, and these are interesting points, but this needs to be supported by sources and presented as opinions, not just removed because it has been contested. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia absolutely should supply context. Removing the entire section would reduce the neutrality of the article. A description of Ramana Maharshi without cultural and academic context is a bad description. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not just Jung, it's also Heinrich Zimmer. You're trying to question the relevance of information by questioning the persoanl motives of one the authors. That's poor rhetorics, based on speculation, and ignoring the other author. The relevance of these sections is that they do mention the context(s) of Ramana Maharshi: Tamil culture, Indian notions of holiness, Indian nationalism, western perceptions of Asian wisdom, the growth of western interest in Asian religions. People like Ramana Maharshi don't exist in a vacuum; that's exactly what's being pointed out here, on multiple levels. An isolated picture of a perfect, holy man, without providing context, is a perpetuation of a limited perception. That's not what Wikipedia is for. This quote, from the lead of Encyclopédie, is insightfull:

"The Encyclopédie is most famous for representing the thought of the Enlightenment. According to Denis Diderot in the article "Encyclopédie", the Encyclopédie's aim was "to change the way people think". He and the other contributors advocated for the secularization of learning away from the Jesuits."

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Grayfell, I was not proposing using a personal blog for any wikipedia purpose. I put the link because it is a good description of the context of the Jung quotes and I thought people following this discussion might find it interesting. There are complying sources if the need arises to add in the context for the Jung quotes (listed at the end of that blog post) and the blog post itself was published in The Mountain Path in a shorter form.

My real point is that the whole business of "context" is really layers of context which can (in my opinion) bog down the article and detract from the subject. If there were a way to accurately and briefly sum up the context, then I would agree with you about supplying it -- but I don't think there is. I think the "context" sections provide an opportunity for people to push points of view and introduce controversial topics into an article that is not served by this. And I fail to see how Jung deciding not to visit Ramana Maharshi really does establish any context for Ramana Maharshi. As for the claim that Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been popularized as Neo-Advaita ... first of all, this is false. His name is sometimes used in an attempt to add an air of legitimacy to certain teachers but his actual teachings have not been popularized by Neo-Advaitin teachers. This is a meaningful distinction. It is his name, and often his photograph, with a vase of flowers beside it, not his actual teachings, which are made use of and popularized by Neo-Advaitin teachers. And second of all, the fact that there are various teachers holding satsangs and claiming to be "in Ramana's lineage" does not establish a context for Ramana Maharshi who died long before the first of these satsangs was ever held. (Iddli (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

I remember vaguely that Jung was initially used for this quote:

"He is genuine and, in addition to that, something quite phenomenal. In India, he is the whitest spot in a white space. What we find in the life and teachings of Sri Ramana is the purest of India."

It was quoted in "The Spiritual Teachings of Ramana Maharshi," but unfaithfull to the original version. It's a nice illustration of the construction of Ramana Maharshi as a timeless spiritual hero. When it turns out that Jung was actually critical, the quote apparently isn't so usefull anymore.

You write "I fail to see how Jung deciding not to visit Ramana Maharshi really does establish any context for Ramana Maharshi"; the text in the article is not about not visiting the ashram, but about Indian notions of holiness. Which is clear from this sentence: "According to Zimmer and Jung, Ramana's appearance as a mauni, a silent saint absorbed in samadhi, fitted into pre-existing Indian notions of holiness."

The neo-Advaita part has been discussed over and over again. This claim has been made by many people, including critics, but also Lucas, who published in an academic hournal. You're trying to divorce Ramana Maharshi himself from his influence; well, you can't. It's another illustration of the perpetuation of the image of Ramana Maharshi as an isolated phenomenon. And you seem to miss the obvious question: why is Ramana Maharshi being used to legitimise these teachers? Precisely because of this 'isolatedness' and this pre-occupation with timeless Asian wisdom. That's why context matters. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What about renaming "Context" as "Legacy", which Ramana definitely has, regardless of whether he wished for it or not (he didn't). I myself find that a lot of the content in context is valid information but it's in the wrong article. It should be in an article about Orientalism or Indian national identity or the effects of Eastern Spiritualism on Western society, but not as a final piece on Ramana. I think if we were to change the final chapter "Context" to "Legacy", then we would quite quickly see what would fit under that title and what should go. Carl Jung, who didn't even bother to go and see Ramana having such a final word on him is a strange thing, especially when it's a slightly nothing comment. Bodhadeepika (talk) 10:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This section, for example:

Tamil culture has a long tradition of devotional spiritual practices[143][144][145] and non-monastic religious authority,[146] such as the Nayanars and the Siddhas. Ramana himself considered God, Guru and Self to be the manifestations of the same reality.[web 51] One of these manifestations is the mountain Arunachala, which is considered to be the manifestation of Shiva.[147][148] It can be worshipped through the mantra "Om arunachala shivaya namah!"[149] and by Pradakshina, walking around the mountain, a practice which was often performed by Ramana.[148] Ramana considered Arunachala to be his Guru.[148][150] Asked about the special sanctity of Arunachala, Ramana said that Arunachala is Shiva himself.[151][note 48] In his later years, Ramana said it was the spiritual power of Arunachala which had brought about his Self-realisation.[147] He composed the Five Hymns to Arunachala as devotional song.[148] In later life, Ramana himself came to be regarded as Dakshinamurthy,[152][153][web 40] an aspect of Shiva as a guru. On the three occasions Venkataraman (Ramana) referred to himself he used the name Arunachala Ramana.

could be moved to Shaivism under influences, the section about Jung could be moved to a different article about Hinduism, and the section western context could be renamed Legacy and re-edited so that it includes Ramana's legacy throughout the world not just in the west. I think this would be a much cleaner end to the article. Bodhadeepika (talk) 11:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I see a lot of hay and very little light in this discussion. Can people please study the policy pages (start with "Five Pillars" if you don't know what they are), and quote the policies on the grounds of which they are objecting? Wikipedia is written according to the established policies, not our individual opinions on what should or should not be in articles. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Mauna22 Input: I think it will be a nice little improvement swapping “Context” for “Legacy” Mauna22 (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

JJ: Well, we seem to have some sort of agreement here. It makes sense. My compliments to you, Bodhadeepika. Well done. With one little reservation: I've moved Alan Edwards from the sources-section to the External links section. We can start the whole discussion over again (or just continue; what's the difference), but I think my reasons are clear, and the external links section provides an opportunity fo this. The reason for including this link is stated right after the link: "Thesis on the influence of Indian "nationalist discourse" on the "construction" of Ramana Maharshi as an Advaitin."

NB: I've also rephrased and expanded (by copying info within the article) the following sentence:

"Since the 1970s western interest in Asian religions has seen a rapid growth. Ramana Maharshi's teachings have been further popularised in the west as neo-Advaita via H. W. L. Poonja and his students."

into

"Since the 1970s western interest in Asian religions has seen a rapid growth. Ramana Maharshi has been further popularised in the west by the neo-Advaita movement, which gives a western re-interpretation of his teachings which places sole emphasis on insight alone. It has been criticised for this emphasis on insight alone, omitting the preparatory practices. Nevertheless, Neo-Advaita has become an important constituent of popular western spirituality."

I guess some people will appreciate this. Again: my compliments to Bodhadeepika. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua. The part that was moved to the section on Shavism, starting with "Tamil culture has a long tradition of devotional spiritual practices", could be worked into the rest of that subchapter in a better way, if anyone has the time. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you seem to appreciate that part. It's still mind-boggling to me how a south Indian Shaivite Tamil could be presented as an universal Advaitin. I think that "we," in the west, know way too little about this cultural context, which is a pity. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Western Legacy

I wonder whether this prose shouldn't be removed? It doesn't mention Ramana at all and is more about the West discovering eastern philosophy:

When this book was published in 1934, the western world had already been exposed to Indian religious thought for 150 years.[149] In 1785 appeared the first western translation of a Sanskrit-text.[149] It marked the growing interest in the Indian culture and languages.[150] The first translation of Upanishads appeared in two parts in 1801 and 1802,[150] which influenced Arthur Schopenhauer, who called them "the consolation of my life".[151][note 45] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[152]

A major force in the mutual influence of eastern and western ideas and religiosity was the Theosophical Society,[153][120] of which Paul Brunton also had been a member. It searched for ancient wisdom in the east, spreading eastern religious ideas in the west.[154] One of its salient features was the belief in "Masters of Wisdom",[155][note 46] "beings, human or once human, who have transcended the normal frontiers of knowledge, and who make their wisdom available to others".[155] The Theosophical Society also spread western ideas in the east, aiding a modernisation of eastern traditions, and contributing to a growing nationalism in the Asian colonies.[124][note 47] Another major influence was Vivekananda,[160][121] who popularised his modernised inerpretation[161] of Advaita Vedanta in the 19th and early 20th century in both India and the west,[121] emphasising anubhava ("personal experience"[122] over scriptural authority.[122]

Brunton wasn't the first westerner who searched for masters in India.[162] Renard mentions Edward Carpenter as the most remarkable example, who wrote about his visit to a "Gnani" (jnani) in his "Adam's Peak to Elephanta", published in 1892.[163]

I would propose that in place of this prose, we include Ramana referenced legacy. Such things to include: Frank Humphries, as the first to write about him, Paul Brunton's writings, Arthur Osborne's writings, Somerset Maugham and the novel and film "The Razor's Edge", the article about him in LIFE Magazine, Mercedes de Acosta, J. D. Salinger, Robert Adams, etc. Bodhadeepika (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds great to me Mauna22 (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This info was relevant for the context-section. If you only mention Humphries etc, you totally remove this context, and return to a more hagiographic way of writing. The "walled garden," as Sitush called it. At least, the Theosophical Society should be mentioned. But I think that this also shows that this context-section was well-constructed, and provided a lot of additional info. Lucas (2011) also contains info on the western discovery of Ramana Maharshi. Given the fact that this is one of the few academical sources on Ramana Maharshi, he can hardly be omitted. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, why would we look at the sources and use first hand accounts when we have third hand obscure academic accounts? That´s moronic. Yes, let´s not use first hand accounts or transcriptions, crisscrossed references or legal documents on the subjects; there´s quite a few in fact, but who cares, you know? It is tiresome and bored to spend time looking for reliable information, and anyway those accounts are biased and hagiographic! I know it because... Well I know it, trust me.

Instead of that let´s talk about the Theosophical Society or even better, we can pick up any lousy paper we come across in google and fill this page with theories that tally with my own point of view. Hey after all, I´m the highest authority in Wikipedia as far Eastern philosophies are concerned. I even have this yellows stars, y´know? Everybody knows it, am I wrong? I was joking, of course, how can I be wrong? I´m unimpeachable! If you don´t believe it I can give you two dozen paragraphs on the subject, I can really do the long run over and over and over and over and over...

Mauna22 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The splitting-up of the context section was not a good idea, as is clear from the proposal above. The section provides a context for the popularity of Ramana Maharshi. Sitush, any thoughts here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head - and I am not spending much time on Wikipedia of late - my only comment would be that Maharshi has attracted all sorts of kooks over the years. The last people we should rely on are those who indulge him. We need to use reliable third-party sources (meaning independent of the sect) to break the walled garden and, yes, we need to put that garden in context. If any contributor to this article is also a follower of Maharshi then I strongly suggest that they read WP:COI because if/when I get back into full swing here I quite probably will be invoking it. - Sitush (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Bodhadeepika's proposal above sounds excellent to me and I am very much in favour of his making all the changes he suggests. (Iddli (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC))

We're falling back into repetition here. Nevertheless:

• The Jung-quote was initially used for hagiographic purposes, as pointed out before. The original quote was quite different; revealing this resulted in the loss of its hagiographic value. I've removed it, since several editors have objected to the relevance of Jung's hesitation to visit Ramana Maharshi, but also for this reason.
• Removing the Jung-part, and moving the rest to other places in the article, is not a solution, as has become clear by the proposal to remove the whole part on the 'pre-history' of western interest in Asian spirituality.
• Jung's hesitation to visit Ramana Maharshi is not a reason to dismiss him, let alone Heinrich Zimmer, and their observation on the context of Ramana Maharshi.
• The part on neo-Advaita has been rephrased, to make very clear that those are not Ramana Maharshi's teachings, but reinterpretations by others.
• Have a look at Rajneesh, for a comparison with another teacher (and also notice Osho®; "hoe verzin je het?"). Also have a look at Swami Vivekananda, where also a context is provided.
• The context here seems to consists of several layers (Tamil spirituality; Vedanticisation; western Orientalism). Compared to the huge literature on these topics, it's a very concise summary. To call this section unnecessary is to sidestep the few academic sources on Ramana Maharshi, and the obvious question: why did he become so famous (in some circles)?
• I have shortened the subsection on the western context.
• I merged the part om Tamil devotional practices into the Shaivism-section.
• I have moved the lineage-section downward, and rename dit into "Legacy," following Bodhadeepika.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have moved part of context into legacy, which is legacy based rather contextual. And also removed subchapters western and indian context, so we now just have one context chapter which seems more appropriate. Bodhadeepika (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rebirth

There's nothing on rebirth in the article, is there? A short search gave me two different accounts, from Godman and a forum thread. Given the centrality of rebirth & moksha in Indian thought, I think there should be some sction on it, shouldn't it? Godman gives a fascinationg account:

"Question:Is reincarnation true?

Sri Ramana Maharshi: Reincarnation exists only so long as there is ignorance. There is really no reincarnation at all, either now or before. Nor will there be any hereafter. This is the truth.

(Note: Comments by David Godman: Most religions have constructed elaborate theories which purport to explain what happens to the individual soul after the death of the body. Some claim that the soul goes to heaven or hell while others claim that it is reincarnated in a new body.

Sri Ramana Maharshi taught that all such theories are based on the false assumption that the individual self or soul is real; once this illusion is seen through, the whole superstructure of after-life theories collapses. From the standpoint of the Self, there is no birth or death, no heaven or hell, and no reincarnation.

As a concession to those who were unable to assimilate the implications of this truth, Sri Ramana would sometimes admit that reincarnation existed. In replying to such people he would say that if one imagined that the individual self was real, then that imaginary self would persist after death and that eventually it would identify with a new body and a new life. The whole process, he said, is sustained by the tendency of the mind to identify itself with a body. Once the limiting illusion of mind is transcended, identification with the body ceases, and all theories about death and reincarnation are found to be inapplicable.)David Godman, The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi"

Something like:

According to David Godman, Ramana Maharshi taught that the idea of reincarnation is based on wrong ideas about the individual self as being real. When this illusoriness is realised, there is no room anymore for ideas about reincarnation. When the identification with the body stops, "all theories about death and reincarnation are found to be inapplicable." Ramana Maharshi: "Reincarnation exists only so long as there is ignorance. There is really no reincarnation at all, either now or before. Nor will there be any hereafter. This is the truth."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Good addition to the article! (Iddli (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC))

Thanks! Have you any idea how to weight hte various readings? The second link, the forum, seems to emphasize the existence of rebirth, while the Godman-account more or less seems to dismiss the whole idea of rebirth - which is quite surprising, I think, in the Indian context, since the whole idea of moksha usually centers on liberation from rebirth. Bit it does make sense, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I would tend toward giving the weight to the Godman account (and include the part about "as a concession to those...") Ramana constantly brought the focus back to turning inward and discovering one's own real nature rather than dwelling on the fear of a long cycle of births. He emphasized that turning within (practicing self-enquiry) had more power than destiny and that this was a way to step free of endless suffering (my words, not his). At the same time, he never tried to turn people away from their beliefs or existing spiritual practices. I'll think some more about whether we should add in a bit more detail on the rebirth topic. (Iddli (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC))

@JJ, I like the paragraph. However, please reword the first quote in indirect speech because putting quote marks for Goodman right beside the quotation from Ramana Maharshi is confusing. - Kautilya3 (talk)

@Kautilya3: okay.

@ Iddli: that's really interesting. Compare Karma in Buddhism#Liberation from samsara.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've reworded the Godman-quote, using "Self" instead of "the Self," since "the Self" is yet another reification. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Timeless in time

@Iddli and Bodhadeepika: in his foreword to "Timeless in time," Deutsch writes "From early childhood, Ramana seemed obsessed with the central Advaitic question ‘Who am I?’". Does one of you have a copy of this book, and can tell me what Deutsch means with "early childhood"? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I have this book and am looking at the forward by Eliot Deutsch .... this is a rather puzzling quote. Deutsch goes on to say (in the very same sentence), "... and was able to answer it, as it were, in terms of his own state of realized consciousness of the undifferentiated oneness of being. He is said to have become enlightened when he was only sixteen years old." I think this may just be a very loose use of the term "early childhood" and a loose use of the term "obsessed." Deutsch offers no early childhood examples of Ramana engaging in any sort of self-enquiry practice.

Ramana himself, though, wrote (in his hymns to Arunachala): "Look, there it stands as if insentient. Mysterious is the way it works, beyond all human understanding. From my unthinking childhood, the immensity of Arunachala had shone in my awareness. But even when I learnt from someone that it was only Tiruvannamalai, I did not realize its meaning. When it stilled my mind and drew me to itself and I came near, I saw that it was stillness absolute." There are other sources which mention this early awareness of Arunachala ...but no writing that I have ever come across mentions an early childhood focus on self-enquiry. Ramana, as a child, is consistently described as fun-loving, athletic, playful. There are descriptions of his being very kind and thoughtful -- but not of him engaging in meditative practices as a little boy. (Iddli (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC))

Hi Joshua and Iddli, I presume Deutsch means from the age of 11, when Ramana's father died. That is the earliest age I have ever read anywhere in the literature where Bhagavan is said to have considered the idea of 'I'. There is a discussion with Paul Brunton where Bhagavan talks about this. You can find it here:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oV6GVSQF3SwC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=On+the+day+his+father+died+he+felt+puzzled+and+pondered+over+it&source=bl&ots=4jG8rCSF0Z&sig=sDU-lfa-wQDqwVGNleUdcqMUCb0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAWoVChMI6fSvtLbHyAIVxT4UCh184Qfd#v=onepage&q=On%20the%20day%20his%20father%20died%20he%20felt%20puzzled%20and%20pondered%20over%20it&f=false

And the information on this webpage is also relevant. It is sourced from "Timeless in Time" and Narashima Swami's biography on Bhagavan:

http://www.satramana.org/html/maharshi_s_life.htm

On a side note, while looking at Ramana's wiki article related to this question, I noticed that the section Childhood could do with being filled out. The death of Ramana's father was a key event in Ramana's childhood. One, because, as above, it's the earliest recorded moment of Bhagavan considering his identity and the 'I' thought (self-enquiry), but also because it caused the family to separate in various ways and Ramana to move to Madurai where he had his realisation four years later. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry. I made a mistake about Bhagavan moving to Madurai after his father's death. It was before. But still, we could do with expanding the Childhood section all the same. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I was just trying to find this I-enquiry after his father's dead. I'll respond more later, but thanks both of you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes:

"When Venkataraman was twelve years old his father, Sundaram Iyer died. On the day of his cremation, for several hours, Venkataraman inquired into the meaning of life and death. Paul Brunton recorded what Ramana told him about his inquiry on this day:

“On the day his father died he felt puzzled and pondered over it, whilst his mother and brothers wept. He thought for hours and after the corpse was cremated he got by analysis to the point of perceiving that it was the ‘I’ which makes the body to see, to run, to walk and to eat. “I know this ‘I’ but my father’s ‘I’ has left the body.”

This was a forerunner of his enlightenment, which was to happen four years later at Madurai. [5]"

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems an excellent idea to expand the Childhood section and I agree these events should certainly be included as they were perhaps critical to what happened at age 16. I have to run now but will try to find direct sources later for things on that webpage. Maybe you could add in the Brunton part, Bodhadeepika? (Iddli (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC))

Joshua Jonathan, The two details to which you attached a link are both contained within the book Timeless in Time (including the "fore-runner" explanation/tie in to Ramana's awakening four years later) so I would very much like to drop the link to the website of a highly controversial teacher. Thanks! (Iddli (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! (Iddli (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC))

Humphreys

Regarding the removal of Humphreys: surely there must be other sources available on him? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, Osborne. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Palaniswami's Books

Bodhadeepika, Though Palanaswami was a Malayali sadhu and would almost certainly have preferred to read in his own language, Osborne wrote that the only books on spiritual philosophy he had access to were in Tamil. Palanaswami's knowledge of Tamil was so limited that this reading was a great labour for him so Ramana would read the books and give Palanaswami a brief synopsis. Osborne went on to say that Ramana later learned Sanskrit, Telegu and Malayalam in this same manner. (Iddli (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

Replacing a noncomplying source

I just wanted to suggest that as we are editing we should try to replace the many references to the self-published Eberts book with complying sources.(Iddli (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

From WP:USERGENERATED:

"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."

Ebert has also published an article on Ramana Maharshi in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon. From the German Wikipedia:

"Mit über 20.000 Artikeln über verstorbene Personen gilt das BBKL als wichtige biographische Informationsquelle über Personen der Kirchen-, aber auch der Philosophiegeschichte."

See also German Wikipedia, Ramana Maharshi. Nevertheless, many of her info seems to be easily traceable to sources like Osborne. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Bhakti

If we want to emphasise the role of bhakti in Bhagavan's life, I suggest we improve the bhakti section in his teachings. A good starting point would be here:

http://ramana-maharshi.weebly.com/the-unity-of-surrender-and-self-enquiry.html

This is an article from The Mountain Path, Vol.18, No.1, 1981 Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Spirituality

Hi Bodhadeepika. You removed several references to Shaivism from the lead. I think that at least in connection to "Saivite spirituality," the change to "spirituality" is not warranted. Spirituality is a too broad term, with specific western connotations like spiritual but not religious and New age, whereas " Saivite spirituality" points to the specific Tamil and Saivite context of Ramana Maharshi's spirituality. After all, he was not a neo-Vedantin, even less a modern western spiritual seeker, but deeply embedded in Tamil culture.
The term " sannyasin" alone is an important example of this context; it's a radical giving up of all wordly identities, and everybody there will appreciate what it means, in all its consequences. It's not like the Bagwhan/Osho sannyasins, or other forms of western "feel good spirituality." It's really radical. I mean, imagine a 16 year old boy in the west going to sit in a church, staying there for weeks, without moving. How long before he's locked up and sent to a psychiatrist? Not that Indian parents seem to be very keen of their kid becoming a sannyasin, but at least there's a whole different context, in which this does have an important place.
I also think that by decontextualizing him too much, he's being recontextualized to a western context; exactly the process that's going on in neo-Advaita. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan, that's fine. I don't mind Saivite spirituality. But I think once within the lead is enough. So your revert is good in my opinion. I also liked your add in about the sannyasin. I just moved it so that the moment of renounciation happened at Arunachala, where he removed his Brahmin thread and chucked away his last coins. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This start of the sentence in the lead "In 1895 an interest in Saivite spirituality was aroused in him..." no longer matches the cited reference, Be As You Are. I think we should stick to known specifics rather than generalizations. (In this case, speak of Ramana Maharshi's response to learning Arunachala was a place one could actually go to, and to reading the Periapuranam). I find this whole "context thing" distracting ... when I read the article now, I feel as if someone is trying to guide me into seeing Ramana Maharshi in a particular light and this comes across as somehow forced or contrived. I think we should stick with the specific facts (of which many are known and recorded) and not add in labels (where there were none) and laboured "contextualizing".

I disagree that dropping all this amounts to Ramana being "recontextualized to a western context". Ramana's life and teachings can stand on their own and do not need to be interpreted by wikipedia editors in order for wikipedia readers to make sense of them. It is too convoluted when we start getting into a Westerner's interpretation of another Westerner's interpretation of how Indians (lacking a "broader context") may have misunderstood (inflated) the significance of Ramana Maharshi and failed to grasp how their culture primed them to respond to him as they did, and variations on this rather patronizing and provocative theme. All of this "contextualizing" may have a place somewhere -- but not in this wikipedia article.

Returning to my original point, I notice there are places where the article is being re-written to make certain points and the original references are left in tact -- yet the new emphasis or new content was not in the book being used as a reference. (Iddli (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC))

I've added a reference. The contextualization/decontextualization definitely has a place here at Wikipedia; it's one of the main topics of debate in contemporary Indology. Western notions have shaped the understanding of Hinduism, both in the west and in India. Please read Postcolonialism to get an impression. Or, as mentioned several times before, Richard King's "Orientalism and religion." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

what about just saying "an attraction to the 63 Nayanars was aroused in him" .... attraction works better than interest, being that attraction is more of a feeling word, while interest denotes thought. It is also a fact. And it is also not a classification. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Bodhadeepika, saying "an attraction to the 63 Nayanars was aroused in him" seems like an excellent way to put it. (Iddli (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC))

Upadesa

Here's the schoolteacher again... Upadesa has various, related meanings; by simply translating it as 'teaching,' and removing "instruction" and the "" around the word teaching, the meaning of these term is altered. That may seem " to the point," but " the point" here is not just one meaning, but a set of realted meanings. "Teachings" suggests some sort of program, or an elaborate philosophy, whereas " upadesa" is also, for example, instructions to a pupil, showing the way one has to go. Interestingly, Rajiv Malhotra has also pointed out that the translation of sanskrit terms into western equivalents is not neutral, but lays a western interpretation, and values, over Sanskrit culture (if you want to know or read more, I'll have to search for some of his writings on this). Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!, That all may be the case, but this title is simply to direct people to the section on Bhagavan's teachings. An inclusion of Upadesa within "the content" is great in my opinion, but as a title, I really don't think "teachings" is undermining Sanskrit culture or claiming that Bhagavan ran a 6.00 a.m. meditation bootcamp, or had a program or anything else. It's simply directing the reader to the section on teachings. Just as in a conversation in English I would never mention Ramana's upadesa nor would anyone else. You would say, "what are his teachings?" "well, his teachings are..." That's why I would call for us to keep that title as teachings. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's immediately stated here, at the very beginning of that section...

Ramana Maharshi provided upadeśa, "instructions" or "teachings," by his own example as a silent saint when sitting together with visitors, but also by answering the questions and concerns raised by his visitors.

...so I think we have the best of both. The reader is not being let down in any way. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Bootcamp"... Our soldiers would put on a strike if they had to follow his regime! :)

If someone would ask me, "What were his teachings," I'd start with saying "Well, "teachings" wouldn't be exactly the right word. he answered questions..." etc. I still think that "teachings" is to static; the interaction-part of it isn't caught by it. But for the moment, okay. I'll dive into the literature, see what other translations there are. I have to admit, though, that we westerners also speak about 'the teachings of the Buddha.' Maybe a comparison with Aurobindo is apt; though, his philosophical system isn't exactly "teachings" either; it's really a system - a set of propositions. That's my problem with it!

Did you take a look at the Upadesa page? I created it today; to my surprise, there wasn't a page on it yet.

NB: see also spokensanskrit.de, upadesa, which gives 21 meanings, the last one being "teaching." "Elucidation" is a nice alternative, but admitted, not the best choice for a header.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

"Guidance," "instruction," "spiritual instruction," those are the therms that Arthur Osborne uses (Arthur Osborne (1959), The Mind of Ramana Maharshi, chaper 14: "Upadesa"). He also notes that "there is no exact English translation of the word" (same page, start of chapter 14). "Instruction" also seems a common translation with others. So, "spiritual instruction" may be the best translation here (yeah yeah, re-introducing the broad and western term "spiritual"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's quite possible I have misunderstood the word upadesa but I always associated it with a different and very specific sort of spiritual instruction ... not Ramana answering questions like, "What is Guru's grace?" but a teaching that simply happens (not in response to a direct verbal question but rather in response to the devotee's readiness and longing to be instructed) and which the devotee would need to be very much on his toes to catch. An example would be when Kunju Swami first came to Ramana and was asked to catch hold of the four puppies who were scrambling to get to some hot gruel and then release them one by one. Kanju Swami understood these requests (and the ones that followed) to be Ramana instructing him to catch hold of the four mahavakyas, and so on. (Iddli (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC))

"A teaching that simply happens" - that sounds like a good phrase to me. It's much more like interaction. I somehow associate "teachings" with a schoolmaster in front of the class, who tells you how the world works. "Spiritual instruction" seems to be closer to the Indian meaning, and it just sounds nice. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)