Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Lead Section

This sentence in the lead section does not seem accurate: "He soon attracted devotees because of his exemplary behaviour as a silent ascetic ..." and it cites Godman as the source ... yet again, the meaning got changed but the reference remained. It was not primarily Ramana's exemplary behavior which attracted devotees. This sentence was originally based on this line in Be As You Are: "After a few years of living on its slopes his inner awareness began to manifest as an outer spiritual radiance. This radiance attracted a small circle of followers ..." That, I believe, is a far more accurate description of why people were so drawn to him. In the videoed interviews of old devotees, what is so striking is their descriptions of Ramana's extraordinary and silencing-of-the-mind radiance. It was so powerful that they all seem to describe it as if it happened a day or two ago. Yes, his behavior was exemplary -- but that was not what stopped them in their tracks, changed them profoundly, and kept them devoted to him for the rest of their lives. (Iddli (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC))

It's akin to Osborne:

'"So began the second phase of his life after Self-realization. During the first, the glory had been concealed and he had accepted the same conditions of life as previously, with the same obedience to teachers and elders; during the second he was turned inwards, completely ignoring the outer world; and this, as will be shown, merged gradually into the third, lasting for half a century, during which his radiance shone like the midday sun on all who approached him." (Osborne, "Self-knowledge", p.26)

Have you ever considered the possibility that these are "religious narratives" [1], and that those biographies also copy each other - just like the Gospels copied the structure and contents of Marc? And that they highlight those aspects which fit into pre-existing notions and expectations, presenting them in a specific narrative?

Anyway, here's what Ebert writes:

• "Seshadriswami recognized in Ramana a kindred spirit, whose exceptional depth of absorption he valued." (Ebert, "Life", p.39)
• "[Sri Ramana's first disciple, Uddandi Nayinar], recognized in the young Swami the living embodiment of the Holy Scriptures and said to himself, "Here indeed are Realization and peace, and here I must seek them."" (Ebert, "Life", p.46)
• "[Annamalai Tambiran] saw the young swami sitting there and was deeply impressed." (Ebert, "Life", p.47)

Osborne says it more poetical (or devotional?), with a reference indeed (indirectly) to "radiance":

"About this time, one Annamalai Tambiran passed by the young Swami’s tree. He was so impressed by his serene beauty as he sat there in solitude, untouched by care and thought, that he fell on his face before him and thereafter went daily to bow down to him." (Osborne, "Self-knowledge", p.30)

But Osborne also writes about Palaniswami:

"A friend of his, Srinivasa Iyer by name, said to him one day: “Why do you spend your life with this stone Swami? There is a young Swami in flesh and blood at Gurumurtam. He is steeped in tapas (austerity) like the young Dhruva in the Puranas. If you go and serve him and attach yourself to him your life will attain its purpose.”" (Osborne, "Self-knowledge", p.31; emphasis mine)

Ramana Maharshi attracted people right-away, because of his extreme asceticism, which fitted into Indian notions about holiness, like Jung and Zimmer noticed. Compare the Buddha. The first reference is to Zimmer, by the way. I think you should also be aware of western notions of holiness, the expectations we take with us when we read texts, and the picture we've created about him. Nevertheless, we can add "spiritual radiance" to the lead, but critics will probably refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Charisma may be a better term here. I'd added "spiritual radiance" to the lead, but replaced it with "charisma," including link. best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

My two pennies' worth. I'm not sure charisma, spiritual radiance or behaviour as a silent ascetic are the right descriptions here. There are plenty of silent ascetics in India and they don't all get the attention Bhagavan got. Exemplary behaviour suggests the attraction was down to people being impressed by a mode of being in line with a certain standard of behaviour. But just about every account I've read of people meeting Bhagavan don't mention how impressed they are by his behaviour, they talk about a feeling. Charisma doesn't work as it is something we use in English to describe more showy personas. And spiritual radiance has a visual aspect to it which is also misleading. This attraction to Bhagavan was due to an internal, imperceptible feeling. I think therefore that if in doubt, cut it out. I would suggest we simply put :

He soon attracted devotees and in later years.... etc.

Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a cursory look at two bios gives several examples of this "exemplary behaviour," and of the way his appearance/behaviour fitted into pre-existing notions and narratives ("He is steeped in tapas (austerity) like the young Dhruva in the Puranas.") But I see your point, though I do stick to my point of "cultural determined expectations and narratives." See also narrative identity: Ramana Maharshi, who's prarabdha karma it was to become a silent saint. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The children of nature

@Iddli and Bodhadeepika: did any of you read The Children of Nature: The Life and Legacey of Ramana Maharshi? It's about "biography as a social constuct" and the perception of Ramana Maharshi by his devotees. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No. Is it really necessary to have the sources at the very start? Can we please put that at the end? Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. When putting them at the end, there are doublures. Anyway, I found it handy to have an overview; it makes it easy to quickly look-up those specific sources, and it provides some background-info on the sources on Ramana Maharshi. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Final years

The quote on his deathbed can be shortened to the time of his death; the shooting star only moved toward Arunachala when standing south of it; and the New York Times quote is WP:PUFFERY. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Over-use of references and use of foreign references

There are places in the article where an unnecessary number of citations are used. And example is this in the lead: "He soon attracted devotees,[8][9][6]..." Putting three references for such a basic claim makes the article less readable and I question whether we need ANY references for that statement when the article is full of details of his devotees.

As for the Zimmer references in the article (number 8 above takes us to a German book), I would like to rely on this policy: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, provided they are otherwise of equal suitability, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." We don't need a book in German to establish that devotees came to Ramana. (Iddli (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC))

WP:OVERCITE is probably your friend, and WP:LEAD in the specific instance to which you refer. Beyond that, this article is chock-full of abysmal sources, not least of which is David Godman. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Iddli, Joshua Jonathan, VictoriaGrayson, and Sitush: Hi Sitush, why is David Godman an abysmal source? Reading here WP:Reliable, it says a source must be published, which David Godman is, although not in every case, as I imagine there may be sources to his blog, which I would agree would not then meet requirements. However, he is published by Ramananasramam, and also by Penguin. Is Ramanasramam an unreliable source maybe? I would imagine so because they would be considered to be partial. Yet all the biographical texts on Ramana were initially published by the ashram itself, so that would be one strike. But back to David Godman, there is no reason to think that he has a poor reputation for checking facts and I'm not sure what else there is. The only thing that I could imagine and find on wiki's rule pages that would make David Godman an unreliable source would be that he is a devotee of Ramana Maharshi and therefore there may be a question of partiality. One could claim that he views Ramana through rose tinted glasses. However, just about everything that is known about Ramana Maharshi comes from his devotees, who were alive during his lifetime or after. Narasimhaswami, the first biographer of Ramana Maharshi and the one who everyone else uses to write their own biographies was a devotee himself, before he went off to write a biography abour Shirdi Sai Baba. It would seem to me that if one is to view David Godman as an abysmal source, presuming it is due to him being a devotee of Ramana (I have found the wiki term - a non-independent source), then just about every source we have on Ramana Maharshi is abysmal, because they are all non-independent. And any independent third-party source that may exist and claim to be third-party would not be because they are all using the non-independent sources to help them write their pieces, making a domino effect of non-independent sources, some of which are dressed up as third-party sources. In fact, if you take it to its logical conclusion, Ramana Maharshi should not have an article at all, and I quote, because "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

Yet, Ramana Maharshi clearly should have an article, as he is obviously a notable person. So how is one to get around this conundrum? Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_and_self-published_sources

WP:Third-party_sources

WP:Identifying_reliable_sources

WP:Notability

WP:Verifiability

Reply by JJ:

• Regarding over-citation: the sentence in question was altered, in response to Iddli; it first said that Ramana Maharshi attracted devotees because of his exemplary behaviour as a silent saint. Since Iddli found this statement problematic, sources were added. The sentemce has been altered, so the references have lost their function now here; I've removed them.
• Regarding "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources" - yes, in preference. That's okay for the sentence in the lead, but Zimmer is also referenced in the context-section, where he notes that Ramana Maharshi should be understood in his Indian context. Zimmer is one of the few academical sources on Ramana Maharshi. The primary sources are not of "equal suitability," since they portray Ramana Maharshi like some sort of Jesus (read Krishna Bhikshu's Sri Ramana Leela), instead of asking questions about context and interpretation. Ramana's life and teaching do not "stand on their own;" they stand in a specific Indian, nay Tamil devotional context, which explain the devotion which speaks out of those primary sources ("speaks out" is probably not correct English; sorry).
• Regarding David Godman: I think that, in this context, he's indeed a good source. Godman has investigated the available materials in a painstakingly way, especially the transcriptions of the upadesa. He's a devotee, but he's critical, and he's been able to highlight some connections between various sayings of Ramana Maharshi. He has also pointed to problems of interpretation, like the various accounts of Ramana's death-experience. So, I think he's a good source, in this context.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If all we know about Maharshi comes from his devotees, as someone suggests above, then I'd question whether this article should even exist. Wikipedia does not exist as a soapbox, nor as a debating chamber for various factions among the devotees. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate Sitush pointing me to the WP:OVERCITE link which is full of useful common sense and should be our guide in this area, I do not agree the entire article should be scrapped. I have read all of David Godman's books and I find his writing to be meticulously well-researched and balanced. He has had access to the Ramanashramam archives for years as well as long-term direct contact with people who spent years with Ramana. I don't think we're going to find a better source. Sitush, you are quite right, though, that the article should not become a debating chamber! In order to avoid that, I think we should err on the site of keeping the article concise ... better to delete a section rather than have the sort of strings-of-citations sentences mentioned in the overcite article which are really just edit wars posing as references to "scholarship". Another thing mentioned in that overcite article as a sign of way too many citations is that when you click the page to edit, there is such a tangled mass of references that it is like trying to edit in a blackberry thicket ... you can't find the thing on the page you wanted to edit. (My analogy, but that was the gist of it.) That's how this article is now ... I wanted to make a little change yesterday and I had to keep going back and forth between the article and the edit page trying to find the sentence and finally gave up! That is surely a sign that we need to cut back hugely on citations. (Iddli (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC))

James Swartz is a junk source

James Swartz is a trash source.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @Joshua Jonathan and Sitush:VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

My my, what makes you think so? ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Osborne 1970

@Iddli: Osborne 1970 is not in the source-list, but I guess it's "Osborne, Arthur (2002) [1954], Ramana Maharshi and the Path of Self-Knowledge (PDF), Sri Ramanasramam". Are the 1970 and the 2002 versions identical? If so, you could also refer to the 2002 version. Otherwise, you'll have to add the 1970 version. Bets regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I was using the actual book. The text looks the same but the book does not have the photos that are in the pdf and the pages are numbered differently. I'll need to figure out how to add it. thanks, (Iddli (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC))

You may also write it out here, and then I'll copy it into the text, if you like. But I trust you'll be doing fine yourself. You obtained that copy yourself back in 1970, I guess? My, that's along time... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Darśana

Weird, there's nothing on darśana in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added some. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wrong here; it was already mentioned in the devotion-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Article Order

@Iddli and Joshua Jonathan: Hi Joshua, I don't believe these changes to the structure of the article function and should be changed:

- Perceptions : Putting the context section and therefore opinions by academics before the section on the devotees, people who lived with Ramana, is to put theory before facts. These people spent their lives with Bhagavan and this is a fact. They are not just perceptions. The context section, if anywhere, should go last, or just before legacy, as it did before, and not be mingled with the section on devotees.

- "Real Self" is not the right term. Real is not the right word, it suggests unreal. True would be a better word but that's still not a good word because it has a direct antonym - untrue. The Self stands alone. There are many Ramana quotations on the matter. This term "real self" seems to have been picked up from the quote by David Godman at the beginning of that section. I'm sure David would retract the use of the word real there if he knew it were to be incorporated as a epithet for the self. All of David's literature is simple and he simply refers to "The Self". "No Mind, I am the Self" by Lakshmana and Sarrada, is an example.

- Another point on The Self. "Self" alone (without the article) is not good English, nor helpful English, and it doesn't help one understand the Self (in an intellectual sense of course) any better. It borders on poetic, but actually just makes one double back rather than flow in their reading of the article. The definite article allows for a flow and comprehension. English being a language that uses articles has reasons for articles, not being Serbian, for instance.

- "I-I" section  : Having looked at it thoroughly, I think it should be deleted. It is too in-depth and confusing for someone not learned in Ramana for a encyclopedia entry and requires too much other added info to it to be of any use to anyone. Even the quote by David is lax. David strains to say that it's just his opinion, and doesn't feel like he has much authority on the matter. There are numerous things that could be given a section in Spiritual Instruction. "Summa Iru", "Mantras and Japas", "Samadhi", "Yoga". I don't think they all need a place. Nor does I-I.

- "I-thought" : Self-Enquiry should incorporate the "I-thought", not the section on The Self. The order worked well before. It firstly explained the Self, then that Bhagavan was silent first and foremost, then that if he was pressed, he would give self-enquiry (next section). Then, finally we had bhakti, which kind of stands apart.

- Bhakti : The bhakti section is now mostly biograhical and to do with Bhagavan's relationship with Arunachala. It now has even less direction from Bhagavan on bhakti as a practice than it did beforehand.

I feel these recent changes to the structure make the article less elegant, less easy to read, and less relevant. An encyclopedia entry is meant to give a clear, concise overview of a subject in a logical, intelligble way. It feels like these recent changes move us aways from that purpose.

The order of chapters in the teachings section was previously and slightly loosely based on the order of topics in "Be As You Are". I think that is a useful guideline for us. Please read introduction to that book for greater insight: http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Ramana%20Maharshi%20-%20Be%20As%20You%20Are--The%20Teachings%20of%20Sri%20Ramana%20Maharshi--Godman.pdf

Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 11:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Perception: I've changed the header into "Devotion"; that seems more apt. I've also moved the "Context"-subsection to the end of this section.
• "Real Self": changed back to "The self".; moved some sentences to this seubsection; and moved some other sentences to a new subsection "Moksha - liberation".
• "I-I section": it's also in the notes, isn't it? So it is covered any way. Maybe there are doublures; I'll let it simmer, see what the night brings, but it looks like a lot of it is already in the notes; some references could be moved, and the term sphuarana should be reatined somehow. Some thoughts on the relevance of this term:

• It's a crucial term in his upadesa, and an articulation of his initial awakening. By removing it, you take the heart out of his upadesa. This quote summarizes it all:

"If one remains still without leaving it, even the sphurana – having completely annihilated the sense of the individuality, the form of the ego, 'I am the body' – will itself in the end subside, just like the flame that catches the camphor. This alone is said to be liberation by great ones and scriptures. (The Mountain Path, 1982, p. 98)."

By self-enquiry, one becomes aware of being-consciousness, "I-I." When abiding in it, even this sense of I-I disappear, and that's liberation. Nisargadattah Maharaj said something similar (and I can't find it back, unfortunately!): 'even the sense 'I am' has to disappear'. These are Ramana's own words; if you think more info is required, then we should provide this info. It only shows that awareness and knowledge of his context is indispensible.

• And Godman says two things in this quote:

"[1] [T]he verses on 'I-I' that Bhagavan wrote are open to two interpretations. They can be taken either to mean that the 'I-I' is experienced as a consequence of realisation or as a precursor to it. [2] My own view, and I would stress that it is only a personal opinion, is that the evidence points to it being a precursor only."

• I don't think it's fair to say that "it's just his opinion, and doesn't feel like he has much authority on the matter." Personally, I found this very usefull information, which clarifies the proces that Ramana went through. It fits in with Ramana Maharshi's own comments about abiding in self-awareness which leads to a complete 'emptying'.
• It's also not the only information by Godman on "I-I."

• Order of subsections on I, I-I and self-enquiry: I've merged them.
• I've moved the Bhakti-part back to the Shaivism-section.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Iddli:

Perceptions -- I am a strong advocate of getting rid of this for the reasons I have stated before.

I agree with what Bodhadeepika says about getting rid of the word real before Self.

I think the main focus of bhakti in the article should be Bhagavan's views on bhakti as the mother of jnana ... Bodhadeepika, you mentioned David Godman's excellent article on this subject recently. Might you be able to write something more focused on that, and then we can trim some of the other stuff?

The article needs trimming in general. There are sentences that are far too cumbersome like "Ramana Maharshi provided upadeśa, "instructions,"[web 21] "elucidations,"[web 21] "teachings,"[web 21] 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." That could be said far more simply. Yes, one could defend using all those words but this kind of thing is going to make readers bog down and stop reading. There are more and more places where the article now sounds like it was awkwardly translated from a foreign language when it used to read very smoothly. Yesterday I noticed "Ventataraman first visited Scott's Middle School...." In English, we don't use the verb "visit" to mean attending school. I think we need to get it back into smooth English and do some vigorous trimming! (Iddli (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

"Bhakti as the mother of jnana"; that sounds interesting, and in line with the devotion for Ramana Maharshi, and his own devotion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

"Bhakti is jnana mata or the mother of jnana". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Bodhadeepika: Hi Iddli, I don't really have too much of an issue with the language in the article, but when I see something that could be better I improve it. If you think the English could be improved in places, why not just go through the article and improve it.

One thing regarding the Bhakti section, when someone does add info there, please include the quote from Bhagavan about jnana and bhakti being ultimately the same thing, as I think it's key to what he's about. There are many quotes for this. Here are a few pages which couldn't be used as sources, but are reliable places to find good quotes on the matter, and can which then be found in other books which are reliable sources:

http://www.hinduism.co.za/bhakti.htm

http://www.friendsoftheway.com/bhakti-and-jnana-yoga

Sorry to keep passing on the bhakti editing hot potato to someone else, but I'm a little too busy with other projects at the moment to be able to fill out that section myself. Best, Bodhadeepika (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: would you have any suggestions for sources here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@JJ: Ahhh! a lot of activity in this article this month. I will review and suggest some sources in next day or two. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! @Iddli: The unity of surrender and self-enquiry, is that the article that you mean? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that Unity article the best thing I have read on the topic. And I did not mean to suggest we say "Bhakti is the mother of jnani" in the article ... i was just trying to point us back to Ramana's position on bhakti which is extremely well explained in that article. (Iddli (talk) 16:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC))

@Joshua Jonathan: Are parts of this article too overly reliant on David Godman or one author to raise WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:QUESTIONABLE concerns? Such sources may be okay, if the content is verifiably from two or more independent authors, or cited by a scholar. Some additional sources (not in this article yet): [1] Ramana Maharshi: Mystic as Translator, Thomas A Forsthoefel (2001), International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2, pages 109-130; [2] Predetermination and Free Will in the Teaching of Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950), Arvind Sharma (1984), Religious Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4, pages 615-626. The "Bhakti is same as Jnana", "Bhakti is the mother of Jnana", "free from thoughts" and such contextual / unusual statements need be clarified, if retained in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:you found sources! You're a miracle! Thanks!

• The concerns on selfsource and questionable have already been raised; yet, in the context, for the interpretation of Ramana Maharshi's teachings, that is, his answers to questions, he seems to be a reliable source.
• As for those answers themselves, there are multiple rcordings of those questions-and-answers, though written down and possibly interpreted by devotees.
• As for the biographic part, it relies on biographies by devotees. No scholarly biography exists, except for one by Heinrich Zimmer, who depends heavily on Narasimha Swami (1931), Self Realisation: The Life and Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi, also a biography by a devotee.
• As for the context of Ramana Maharshi, J. Glenn Friesen has written an excellent analysis, but unfortunately, this is self-published (though he is working on a book); and Alan Edwards has written a master-thesis, placing the creation of the image of Ramana Maharshi as a timeless saint in the context of east-west interaction and the strive toward Indian independence. And Philip Lucas has published two sholarly articles in Nova Religio about the western popularity of Ramana Maharshi. That's about it, unfortunately, since we westerners (me including!) tend to emphasize the jnana-aspect, apparently unaware of the context in which this intense devotion took place.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Forsthoefel also refers to Halbfass. That's good. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I found another publication by Forsthoefel: Weaving the inward thread to awakening: The perennial appeal of Ramana Maharshi (20th-century Hindu mysticism across cultures and interfaith dialogues), HORIZONS, Volume: 29, Issue: 2, Pages: 240-259, Published: FAL 2002. It's been reprinted in Gurus in America (2005).Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Religiosuty prior to awakening

Interesting info from "Sab Jan," a youth-time friend of Ramana:

"When young Venkataraman [who later became Ramana Maharshi] was studying in Madurai in the American Mission High School in the 4th, 5th and 6th forms in the years from 1892 to 1895, he was closely associated with a Muslim boy whom he chose as his intimate friend. He was very fond of this young Muslim boy whom he addressed as Sab Jan, even though his real name was Abdul Wahab. The depth of attachment between them was so great that they were often recognized by the neighborhood as the

‘Inseparable mates’.

Even as a student he [Venkataraman] was very religious. Every Saturday and Sunday he would go to the Tirupurakundram Temple. I used to accompany him often. He used to make me go round the temple in ‘pradakshina’ saying, “God’s creation is alike and there is no difference in creation. God is the same. The apparent differences in Gods are created by man”. In the company of Venkataraman, I never felt any difference between a mosque and a temple."

This seems to be the original source, which says:

“Even as a student he was very religious. Every Saturday and Sunday he would go to Tiruparankunram and go round the Subramania Swamy Temple with fervent religious ecstasy. He used to take me several times with him and make me go around the temple saying, ‘God’s creation is alike and there is no difference in creation. God is the same, the apparent differences in Gods are created by man’. In the company of Venkataraman I never felt any difference between a mosque and the Subramania Swamy temple.

This contradicts the traditional biographies of Ramana Maharshi, which say that he was not interrested in religion prior to his "awakening." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sri Ramana Vijayam

@David Godman: was Sri Ramana Vijayam first published in the 1920s, or in 1931? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Bhagavan's early life

Hi, this is David Godman here. I have returned to this article after a gap of several years and discovered many things in it that I feel could be improved on. I don't propose to do any editing myself. I will just list things that caught my attention, usually by citing reference numbers from the text. It's up to everyone else to decide whether to act on them or not. I have started at the beginning. The next installment will be a serious critique of the way that Bhagavan's Self-realisation experience has been reported.

Note 3 This comment by Eliott Deutsch is not supported by any biographical account, or by anything Bhagavan himself has said. There is no evidence that he contemplated the question ‘Who am I? before he was sixteen. In the succeeding quote from Brunton Bhagavan is analyzing the nature of the ‘I’ in an intellectual way, but he is not asking himself the crucial question, ‘Who am I?’

The Brunton quote itself is problematic. In the original typed manuscript the account concludes, ‘On that day he attained jnana,’ which is clearly wrong. A. R. Natarajan, who edited the first edition of Conscious Immortality, left it out, and he also omitted it from Timeless in Time, which he wrote several years later. There may be a kernel of truth in the story, but its censored conclusion is inconsistent with other known facts of Bhagavan’s teenage years.

Note 5 Sivananda’s version is a very poor translation. It is just an abbreviated paraphrase. If you want to link to the full text, use Saint Sekkizhar’s Periya Puraanam, translated by R. Rangachari, published by Sri Ramanasramam, 2008, ISBN 81-8288-086-6

Note 6 None of this is relevant to the highlighted ‘Tamil Saivaite bhakti saints’. These saints belong to an era that stretched from the 6th to the 9th century. The philosophies described in the note did not arise until much later.

[19], [web 5] and [22] During this time he also read Sekkizhar's Periyapuranam… which "made a great impression" on him,

The best source for this is Krishna Bhikshu’s Sri Ramana Leela. The text says:

The first religious text that Venkataraman read was Periyapuranam. It was if he [had] entered a new world altogether. The more he read, the greater was his thirst… The subjects of the book were all contented devotees of Siva. Devotion, love, peace and bliss flooded all over [him] as knowledge of Siva himself.

As he was progressing [with his reading] Venkataraman’s devotion and reverence for the devotees was increasing – he grieved at their travails and rejoiced in their triumphs. Venkataraman felt that Siva was glancing at him, just as he beheld the devotees. [However,] on completion of the book, his emotional upsurge vanished. (Sri Ramana Leela, 2004 ed. p. 15)

All three references can be replaced with one for this Sri Ramana Leela passage. The two paragraphs could also be included since they contain extra material that is not in the original article.

[web 3] Osborne’s biography does not say that he began to visit the Meenakshi temple in the period between reading the Periyapuranam and the moment when he had his realisation experience. He may have gone there casually, since it was in his neighbourhood, but it was not because of any newly-discovered sense of devotion. In the standard account of Bhagavan’s realisation that appears in both Narasimhaswami’s and Osborne’s books the following lines appear:

Formerly I used to go there [the Meenakshi Temple] very occasionally with friends to look at the images and put the sacred ash and vermilion on my brow and would return home almost unmoved.

There is nothing here that indicates he went to the temple with an increased devotional fervor from the time he reads the Periya Puranam till the moment of his realisation.

[29] "a state of blissful consciousness transcending both the physical and mental plane and yet compatible with full use of the physical and mental faculties."

This Osborne quote is not supported by anything in the Krishna Bhikshu biography (‘his emotional upsurge vanished’) or by Narasimhaswami’s account in Self Realization. Narasimhaswami supports Krishna Bhikshu by saying that after the initial euphoria of devotional fervor wore off, ‘the dull routine of his life was resumed’. I have not come across Bhagavan making any remarks that would support this particular description of his state between 1895 and 1896. Incidentally, Narasimhaswami is spelled as one word, not two.

However, there is an interesting reply by Bhagavan in Sri Ramana Vijayam, the Tamil biography that first appeared in the 1920s. It raises the possibility that Bhagavan did experience deep meditative states spontaneously when he was about twelve years old, well before the period that Osborne mentioned. The author of the biography, Suddhananada Bharati, asked Bhagavan, ‘Were you not in the habit of lying down at night, with your legs stretched out? How would meditation take place then?’ (Sri Ramana Vijayam, p. 68, 1991 edition)

The question referred to a time a few years before the Self-realisation experience in Madurai. Bhagavan replied:

Some incomplete practice from a past birth was clinging to me. I would be putting attention solely within, forgetting the body. Sometimes I would be sitting in one place, but when I regained normal consciousness and got up, I would notice that I was lying down in a different narrow space [to the one where I had first sat down].

The phrase ‘incomplete practice from a past birth clinging to me’ includes the Tamil term vittakurai which the Tamil Lexicon defines as ‘Karma resulting from acts performed in a previous birth, and which are considered to be the cause of progress in the current birth’. The implication is that some spiritual practice performed in a previous life carried forward and drew the young Venkararaman into states of absorption in which he was unaware of either his body or his surroundings.

I think the Osborne description is suspect since it has no documentary support, but this little-known episode from a few years earlier can be included in the account.

[30] I have the same objection here. Osborne begins chapter two of his biography by saying:

This current of awareness, fostered by continual effort, grows ever stronger and more constant until finally it leads to Self-realization, to sahaja samadhi, the state in which pure blissful awareness is constant and uninterrupted and yet without impeding the normal perceptions and activities of life.

This is not supported by any other biography or by anything Bhagavan himself has said. There is nothing to substantiate his claim that a current of awareness was growing stronger in Sri Ramana in the months prior to realisation.

David Godman (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Godman: really pleased to see you here; welcome, and thanks for your comments! Some responses:

• Deutsch & Brunton: I found this comment by Deutsch puzzling, and asked other editors what they thought about it. I've added additional info to the note. Brunton's comment that Ramana Maharshi attained jnana is indeed at odds with other accounts; yet, it's clearly attributed, and it's clear that these are his words.
• Saint Sekkizhar’s Periya Puraanam: I've replaced the link with the title you recommand.
• Tamil Saivaite bhakti saints: it is relevant to contemporary Shaivism.
• "a great impression": why not your own webpage? You gave an extensive analysis there.
• Osborne’s biography & the Meenakshi temple: I've removed that sentence, but Osborne does mention visits to the temple, where 'a new current of awareness started to awaken', and does situate this before the death-experience.
• "a state of blissful consciousness": it means that Osborne's biography is not reliable?
• deep meditative states & vittakurai: interesting, especially from a neuro-theological perspective: what was going on in his brain?

I'm looking forward to your next part. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan

Reply by Davd Godman:

Deutsch & Brunton: I found this comment by Deutsch puzzling, and asked other editors what they thought about it. I've added additional info to the note.

If someone makes a claim about Bhagavan’s early spiritual experiences and attitude that has no textual support, there is no reason to include it in a note, which is then followed by a statement that there is no evidence for the claim. I accept that Prof. Deutsch is a distinguished Indologist whose opinions on Bhagavan are to be respected, but this is not a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact. Raising and then refuting these sorts of claims takes us into the realms of original research which is not the point of Wikipedia. It is simpler to stick to known facts.

Brunton's comment that Ramana Maharshi attained jnana is indeed at odds with other accounts; yet, it's clearly attributed, and it's clear that these are his words.

I agree that this statement (Bhagavan attained jnana at the age of twelve) should be considered since it has appeared in a published form which indicates that Brunton heard these words from Bhagavan himself. However, since the statement contradicts everything else that Bhagavan has said about his Self-realisation, it should be annotated to this effect. It is likely that Brunton misheard what Bhagavan said and conflated two unrelated incidents: an experience at his father’s funeral and the Self-realisation experience he had at the age of sixteen. I think the quote can appear in the article as it is since it describes an experience that is not recorded elsewhere. The unreliable conclusion can be referred to in a note.

Tamil Saivaite bhakti saints: it is relevant to contemporary Shaivism.

The original text does not reference contemporary Saivism. It merely says ‘Tamil Saivite bhakti saints.’ These people were not philosophers. They belonged to a bhakti movement which believed that salvation was possible through love and devotion to the divine. If you want to annotate these four words, explain who Jnanasambandhar, Appar, Sundaramurthi and Manikkavachagar are, since these are the premier saints of the movement. Explain how their movement and songs challenged and ultimately triumphed over the contemporary religions of Buddhism, Jainism and vedic brahminism. The current note currently contains no information about the people who are highlighted in the link.

"a great impression": why not your own webpage? You gave an extensive analysis there.

If you are asking why I am not linking to my site here, I think we should go for primary sources wherever possible. The Krishna Bhikshu biography is the most complete and nearest-to-the-source documentation that we can cite on this topic.

Osborne’s biography & the Meenakshi temple: I've removed that sentence, but Osborne does mention visits to the temple, where 'a new current of awareness started to awaken', and does situate this before the death-experience.

This is the conclusion of chapter one in Osborne’s biography:

…it was provoked by a book. Again it was a wave of bewildering joy at perceiving that the Divine can be made manifest on earth. His uncle had borrowed a copy of the Periapuranam, the life stories of the sixty-three Tamil Saints. Venkataraman picked it up and, as he read, was overwhelmed with ecstatic wonder that such faith, such love, such divine fervour was possible, that there had been such beauty in human life. The tales of renunciation leading to Divine Union inspired him with awe and emulation. Something greater than all dreamlands, greater than all ambition, was here proclaimed real and possible, and the revelation thrilled him with blissful gratitude.

From this time on the current of awareness which Sri Bhagavan and his devotees designate ‘meditation’ began to awaken in him. Not awareness of anything by any one, being beyond the duality of subject and object, but a state of blissful consciousness transcending both the physical and mental plane and yet compatible with full use of the physical and mental faculties.

Chapter two begins:

This current of awareness, fostered by continual effort, grows ever stronger and more constant until finally it leads to Self-realization, to sahaja samadhi, the state in which pure blissful awareness is constant and uninterrupted and yet without impeding the normal perceptions and activities of life. It is rare indeed for this consummation to be attained during the life on earth. In the case of Sri Bhagavan it occurred only a few months later and with no quest, no striving, no conscious preparation. He himself has described it.

“It was about six weeks before I left Madura for good…’

I don’t see any temple visits between reading the Periyapuranam (the first time his devotional fervor was aroused) and the description of his realisation. There is also no mention of these visits in either Sri Ramana Leela or Self-Realization.

"a state of blissful consciousness": it means that Osborne's biography is not reliable?

I think Osborne is mistaken here since there is nothing in the written records to corroborate this statement. Everyone gets things wrong once in a while, and that includes Bhagavan’s biographers. Since, in his later years, Bhagavan spoke extensively about his life, we have the opportunity to check and verify many of the incidents that are reported in his biographical accounts. In the Perumal Swami court case Bhagavan was shown a copy of Self Realization and asked (a) whether he had checked it prior to publication and (b) whether it was accurate. He replied that he had not read it prior to publication and that it contained some mistakes. Unfortunately, he never said what they were. While all the biographies mostly relate incidents that are corroborated elsewhere, there are a few occasions when some of their statements need to be challenged. I think this is one of them.

deep meditative states & vittakurai: interesting, especially from a neuro-theological perspective: what was going on in his brain?

I will go into this in more detail in my next set of comments.

David Godman (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi David; thanks for your reply.

• Regarding the use of primary sources: Wiki-policies say to use secondary sources where possible. You are considered by several editors here to be such a source (others regard you to be a primary source).
• Regarding the bhakti-saints: you wrote "their movement and songs challenged and ultimately triumphed over the contemporary religions of Buddhism, Jainism and vedic brahminism." - that was then; what is their importance now, or at the time that Ramana Maharshi read that book? Why did people read that book? In other words: what was the religiou milieu in which Ramana Maharshi grew up?
• Regarding Osborne: the 2002 version, published by Sri Ramanasramam as a pdf, ends chapter one with the following paragraph:

"Sri Bhagavan has told with a characteristic simplicity how this awareness began to awaken in him during his visits to the Meenakshi Temple at Madura. He said, “At first I thought it was some kind of fever, but I decided, if so it is a pleasant fever, so let it stay.”"

Could it be that osborne has placed the rise of this awareness, and the visits to the Meenakshi Temple, too early? But if so, why?

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very glad David Godman has joined us here and found his comments very clarifying.

I was particularly struck by this comment of his:

"If someone makes a claim about Bhagavan’s early spiritual experiences and attitude that has no textual support, there is no reason to include it in a note, which is then followed by a statement that there is no evidence for the claim. I accept that Prof. Deutsch is a distinguished Indologist whose opinions on Bhagavan are to be respected, but this is not a matter of opinion, it is a question of fact. Raising and then refuting these sorts of claims takes us into the realms of original research which is not the point of Wikipedia. It is simpler to stick to known facts."

I very much agree with this. If we discover that someone has quite obviously gotten something wrong (misheard, misremembered, etc), just because it made it into print is not a reason to put it in the article. I agree we should stick to the facts. (Iddli (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

I agree with Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Current of awareness

@Joshua Jonathan

Could it be that osborne has placed the rise of this awareness, and the visits to the Meenakshi Temple, too early? But if so, why?

I think you are right on this, but I can’t answer the question ‘Why?’ other than to say that it was a probably a mistake.

I ran the quote about Bhagavan having ‘some kind of fever’ and deciding it was a pleasant one through all the Ramanasramam text databases. It does not show up in any book other than Osborne’s. I included all issues of The Mountain Path and The Call Divine in the search and drew a blank there as well. There is no other known citable authority for this incident. The nearest I could find was a quote from Lucia Osborne (Arthur’s wife) describing a kundalini experience she had in the following words:

From the base of my spine a tingling feeling arose as if a thousand ants were climbing up. ‘I must have fever, I thought; but a most delightful fever, so let it be.’ (The Mountain Path 1994, p.148)

I hope Arthur didn’t get the idea from his wife.

In the biographies that appeared during Bhagavan's lifetime there are two mentions of Bhagavan’s visits to the Meenakshi Temple prior to his realisation:

Venkataraman who would earlier visit the temple of Meenakshi only on holy days would now become a frequent visitor. (Sri Ramana Leela, p. 21 2004 edition).

Formerly I would go there [the Meenakshi Temple] rarely with friends, see the images, put on sacred ashes and sacred vermilion on the forehead and return home without any perceptible emotion. After the awakening into the new life, I would go almost every evening to the temple. (Self-Realization, p. 23, 1993 edition)

Neither of these accounts supports Osborne’s contention that he went there in a state of increasing fervor prior to his realisation. In fact, Osborne rewrote Narasimhaswami’s statement and included it in his own biography in the following form:

One of the features of my new state was my changed attitude to the Minakshi Temple. Formerly I used to go there very occasionally with friends to look at the images and put the sacred ash and vermilion on my brow and would return home almost unmoved.

This appears to refute Osborne's own comments that appear at the end of chapter one and the beginning of chapter two of his own biography.

I mentioned in earlier comments that neither Narasimhaswami nor Krishna Bhikshu made any mention of Bhagavan’s feverish devotional fervor in the weeks leading up to his realisation. Subsequent biographers have ignored Osborne’s claims completely. A. R. Natarajan devotes a whole chapter to Bhagavan’s state of mind immediately prior to his realisation and fails to mention Osborne’s claims. Captain Narayanan (Arunachala’s Ramana, volume 1) wrote that he collected all the stories of Bhagavan’s death experience and placed them back-to-back, but this Osborne claim was omitted. I can only guess that they both thought the story was not reliable and therefore omitted it.

Since the Osborne claim has appeared in some versions of his biography, you can keep it in if you want to, but I think it should be accompanied by a note to the effect that the story is not supported by anything Bhagavan said about his realisation and the events that preceded it.

David Godman (talk) 03:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@David Godman: I've added a note. What do you make of Sab Jan's account below? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Osborne p.170: "The answer is the awakening current of awareness mentioned at the end of Chapter One, vibrating as the very essence of one’s being and yet impersonal." So, Osborne was very well aware of what he wrote. Could it be that Ramana Maharshi told this to Osborne personally? Note also that Narasimha Swami recorded Ramana's account of an avesam, a "current" or "force" which appeared/descended, but omitted this arising from Self-Realisation, as if it was a current which had always been thre, but never been noticed. Osborne does mention the absorption into this current at p.13. In which ways did Narasimha Swami interpret Ramana Maharshi's answers to his queries on his life? He also redacted the "death-experience," using the "I" term instead of the unpersonal account. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Om namah shivaya

I am having trouble understanding the logical order here, in the comments. So I am not sure if I am placing this one from me best in that order. It concerns a small edit I just now did.

Anyway... In the Early Years section I corrected the Sanskrit translation of the mantra 'Namah Shivaya' from its earlier (simply fanciful) version to this: 'na-maH-shi-vA-ya, meaning "prostration" (namaH) - "to shiva" (shivAya).' I plan to come back later to examine other such translation details in this article. Savitr108 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your edit, because the source I used says "not mine" (namaH) - "belongs to shiva" (shivAya), not "prostration" (namaH) - "to shiva" (shivAya). Note the relevance of this specific interpretation in the context of Ramana Maharshi: "It is negating the ahankAra (ego) and realizing everything to belong to Lord shiva." The Wiki-article Om Namah Shivaya gives yet another translation in the lead, namely adoration (namas) to Śiva", preceded by the mystical syllable "Aum". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking here to Joshua Jonathan...

The word namaH (namaḥ, नमः) simply does not mean 'not mine' in Sanskrit. To me it looks like a word-play, a pun.

For starters, namaḥ exists as one word, not two. It is a noun, in the nominative case, singular. To write 'not mine' you will need two words, namely 'na mama,' if the context calls for the nominative case singular. The 'not mine' version presents no more than a fanciful pun, I am guessing -- however nicely the meaning fits in this context.

Shall we present such things as fact? Savitr108 (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe put the "not mine" interpretation in a note. As I said, in this context it's a relevant interpretation. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Our article is right, the web site is wrong. No Sanskritist would accept the web site's meaning even as a pun because it would be grammatically wrong. Why are we use random web sites for sources anyway? - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Savitr and Kautilya that the "not mine" translation is wrong. And I agree that the cited website seems "random" or to put it another way, it has no clear qualification as a reliable source (WP:RS). As someone who has received a bit of training in Sanskrit, Savitr's analysis appears spot on. As someone who has long observed how fanciful etymologies are sometimes used at devotional websites to offer inspiration, it does not seem surprising that such a website would offer a fanciful etymology in this way, without explaining that it was a fanciful etymology.

This leaves the question of what should happen to the citations. The sentence in question did not have its own specific reference, because the "random webpage" with the fanciful etymology appeared in the subsequence sentence. Conceivably this random webpage could be a reliable source for that later sentence that seems valid ("The mantra aims at negating the ego-tendencies, and instead attending to Shiva"), though I doubt that page should function as a reliable source for anything, given its unreliability for basic etymology. Someone with time should make sure the references are appropriately tidied up - but not by introducing nonsense from random webpages. --Presearch (talk)

I don't doubt you're right, but please provide a source. The " nt mine" interpretation was also sourced by this website. I have explained why I used this source: because it fits in with the specific context of Ramana Maharshi. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I just eliminated the non-reliable (non-WP:RS) reference that JJ has tripled down on using to promulgate a fanciful etymology. If he persists in defying the advice of Savitr, Kautilya, and myself, someone with more time than I have should arrange a request for comments. Lines must be drawn against what are frankly absurdities. --Presearch (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

JJ's latest compromise works for me. It would be ideal if we knew what meaning the subject attached to the mantra. - 11:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

And no need for a RfC; just a source is enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Notable subjects

Several persons were removed from the list of devotees, with the comment:

"trimmed redlinks, if subjects are notable, please create cited articles first"

I don't see why devotees should only be notable if they've got their own article, except for Jiří Vacek. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Independent sources

We really should not be using blogs, stuff by Brunton, Godman etc, and stuff published by bodies connected to the article subject. We're supposed to use independent reliable sources and disciples/followers etc are certainly not that. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Two, three academical papers, that's all. Which also rely on those 'dependent sources'. The best part are some of the notes on RM's "death experience," for RM's biography, which have been published by Godman. They give a more basic, uninterpreted version of this experience. And there's an interesting, critical work which is, unfortunately, self-published. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Dakshinamurthy Stotram and "deathbed stuff"

This info is relevant, because the standard narrative sees RM's "death experience" as an isolated experience without any religious context, while RM in fact already may have been 'scripted' by preceding experiences and influences. You probably don't know too much about this RM-cult, and the standard interpretation of RM? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That be may true. In which case we need probably to make the point more obvious. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is a biased article

Haven't visited this page for a couple of years. I came today just to see things got worse.

User Joshua Jonathan is carrying on with his own agenda trying to convince everyone that RM was a just Shiva bhakta. Which is not completely wrong of course, only one sided and in this particular case biased.

Let me explain myself.

It is true actually that we can say RM was a shivaite but with the same arguments we can say he was a Krishna bhakta or even a Christ bhakta. Shiva is clearly more connected with his life and culture than Krishna or Christ, sure, but not actually in the explicit heavy way this article pretends.

Moreover all the information that connects RM with different forms of philosophy (Vedanta, Yoga, Non-dualism) is being quoted and putted into question while all the information that talks about the devotional side of his teachings (particularly shaivism) is highlighted and taked for granted without further elaboration.

When biographers talk about the devotional side of his teachings it seems there is no problem to admit their commentaries as accurate and true while when they talk about the more “sophisticated” so to speak side of them this commentaries -from the same authors- are ignored, overlooked, or putted into question since the sources are not reliable: the main reason for this unreliability often lies in the fact that they are devotees and therefore not objective. So they are ok when they say “this is devotion” but are ignored when they say “this is Vedanta”. This is a plain contradiction and it is present throughout the whole article.

Take this example of Osborne and Upadesa:

• “Ramana Maharshi provided upadeśa ("spiritual instruction") by providing darshan and sitting silently together with devotees and visitors, but also by answering the questions and concerns raised by those who sought him out”

You cannot find anywhere RM did so, in fact we can read in several books from several authors of different backgrounds that the opposite is true, that he never actually gave Upadesa to anyone. This is clearly Osborne's interpretation, nevertheless is presented as a relevant fact for wikipedia readers.

Now take the example of the Self in RM's teachings:

• “Ramana Maharshi described his Self as a "force" or "current," which descended on him in his death-experience, and continued throughout his life”

A bit later:

• “Ramana used various terms to denote this. The most frequently used terms were sat-chit-ananda, which translates into English as being-consciousness-bliss; God, Brahman and Siva, and the Heart”

He never actually talked about “his Self”, if he did so was in a light way, generally speaking, indeed one of the main aspects of his teaching is that there is only one Self (literally dozens of quotes about this subject) nevertheless the “his Self” theory seems to be the right one according to editors. Furthermore this is an absolutely partial exposition of the teachings since RM's interpretation of the Self both in his words and words by critics and studies can be easily connected with concepts like Tao, Zen Dharma, etc... Surprisingly wikipedia editors seem to be not interested in this aspect of the teachings which have more comentaries and more varied sources, they ignore them, which talks about the incompleteness and one-sidedness of this article.

It is a fact that for most of the trivia we can find about RM that there are dozens of commentaries that speak directly or indirectly about the connection of them with Vedanta, Yoga, Non-dualism and other forms of Philosophy while for the same fact or trivia we find few commentaries that speak of its connection with forms of devotionalism (commentaries that interestingly enough had been made by devotees that seem to be otherwise unreliable sources). Wikipedia chooses always to highlight the later and ignore or put into question the former in case they are mentioned at all. The question is: why?

I'm afraid they call this “agenda”, more specifically in my opinion in this particular case we can talk about user Joshua Jonathan's agenda.

You might like to check out Joshua Jonathan's commentaries about RM in this very page and in his talk page. You'll see how this thing with RM has been an obsession for him for years already. He brings up the subject with no reason, he talks in derogatory terms of anything related with RM not in line with his personal view and he persuaded other Wikipedia editors to support him and his POV. Take a look please at the commentaries he does about RM and the context in which they are done. Notice too how all the criticism about this obsession of him has been edited so it is hidden for casual readers both here and in his talk page.

It would be wrong to let devotees making a partisan page using only terms of praise without paying attention to criticism. But what's going on here is equally wrong. Joshua Jonathan has been acting as a disruptive editor for years now and far from being warned or prevented for doing so he has been sort of implicitly encouraged by wikipedia editors. Too bad.

This article is driven, is partial, and is getting worse.

--8ceptic (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Take care with comments like "Joshua Jonathan has been acting as a disruptive editor for years." See WP:PERSONALATTACK and WP:TENDENTIOUS. And provide WP:RS when you write things like "we can read in several books from several authors of different backgrounds that the opposite is true" or "this aspect of the teachings which have more comentaries and more varied sources"; merely criticising Osborne or Godman won't suffice.

The point that you wish to ignore is that most sources on Ramana Maharshi are biased toward a (neo) Advaita Vedanta point of view; what you call "the more “sophisticated” so to speak side". That is, a domesticated Brahmanical point of view, which overlays Ramana Maharshi with it's own framework and neglects the 'folk religious milieu' of Ramana Maharshi. An "agenda," if you like, though most authors probably are unaware of it.

Ramana Maharshi's devotionalism is no "trivia." Wikipedia [sic] does not "chooses always to highlight the later [devotionalism] and ignore or put into question the former [the connection of them with Vedanta, Yoga, Non-dualism and other forms of Philosophy] in case they are mentioned at all," on the contrary. The question is rather: why do you wish to ignore this devotional side, and prefer the interpretations which neglects basic facts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

14 minutes: that was fast.

Actually to use the word “obsession” is probably way worse than using the expression “disruptive editing”. The problem with obsessions is that people who suffer them are absolutely unaware of the fact that they suffer them...

BTW talking about personal attacks your commentary sounds like a threat to me. Don't worry, I´ll step aside from this very moment. I got nothing else to say about this particular subject. Besides I don't have any hope wikipedia editors will do anything about it. This will be probably ignored, hidden and forgotten. Probably you yourself will take care of that. --8ceptic (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Some more comments:

• "It is true actually that we can say RM was a shivaite but with the same arguments we can say he was a Krishna bhakta or even a Christ bhakta" - the arguments here are his actual devotion to Ramanuchala, an embodiment of Shiva, not of Krishna or Christ. If there are serious reasons to call him a Krishna or Christ bhakta, comparable to his devotion to Arunachala an Shiva, please provide sources.
• Critical notes about the Advaita-interpretation of his teachings were already presenty before I started editing this article.
• Upadesa - this word 'back-translates' the word "teachings"; Ramana Maharshi did not offer teachings as in a sophisticated set of teachings or doctrines; he answered questions, out of his own experience and understanding. The word "teachings" is therefor misleading; "upadesa," a term indeed being used by Osborne, fits better. Note the title of his work "Upadesa saram."
• "Self" - this is the term that's being used by his biographer Narasimha, and by commentators like Godman. You may have a point when you say "He never actually talked about “his Self”", but then this point nicely illustrates my point, that his "teachings" have been interpreted by his redactors and commentators. Nevertheless, the phrase "his Self" can be found plenty in Talks with Ramanas Maharshi. And Narasimha does write "This current, or avesam, now felt as if it was my Self." So, if that's incorrect, the sources are incorrect, but it is what the sources write.
• Which brings me back to a previous point, namely questioning the sources. The points above, about upadesa and the Self, show that this is exactly what you're doing: questioning the sources, when they don't fit your understanding.
• Connecting Ramana Maharshi's interpretation of the Self with concepts like Tao, Zen Dharma - yes, that could be done. We can also connect him with the Naths, or Kabir and the Sikhs, to stay closer to the source, and to heterodox Indian folk religiosity, which seems more apt to characterize him. But if there are "more comentaries and more varied sources" who connect him with this eclectical western mix of spiritual traditions, please provide some sources.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ramana Maharshi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316122951/http://ramanabhagavan.com/reminiscences-ii-swami-satyananda-surpassing-love-and-grace to http://ramanabhagavan.com/reminiscences-ii-swami-satyananda-surpassing-love-and-grace
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003022425/http://sriramanamaharshi.org/teachings.html to http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/teachings.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502194248/http://benegal.org/ramana_maharshi/books/pos/pos019.html to http://benegal.org/ramana_maharshi/books/pos/pos019.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121024044631/http://www.satsangbhavan.net/biography.htm to http://www.satsangbhavan.net/biography.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121119192432/http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/downloads/Day_by_Day_Extract.pdf to http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/downloads/Day_by_Day_Extract.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131229010228/http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Ramana%20Maharshi%20-%20Be%20As%20You%20Are--The%20Teachings%20of%20Sri%20Ramana%20Maharshi--Godman.pdf to http://selfdefinition.org/ramana/Ramana%20Maharshi%20-%20Be%20As%20You%20Are--The%20Teachings%20of%20Sri%20Ramana%20Maharshi--Godman.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121003022548/http://sriramanamaharshi.org/downloads/who_am_I.pdf to http://www.sriramanamaharshi.org/downloads/who_am_I.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

New external links added, which I reverted

I reverted this edit because:

1) the edit summary was not accurate- the edit summary says a link to ramanashram was being added... which was done and a link to a satramana organization 2) it was listed as a minor edit.... I think of minor edits as correcting typos or mispellings... nothing that really changes the article 3) The wording that was given for the satramana website is innacurate "Direct Experience and some writings of Sri Ramana Maharshi]" the page linked to has almost none of Ramana Maharshi writings on it- it is mostly some unattributed person talking about how wonderful Ramana is.

As such I have reverted it.... once this issue is resolved, I would like to clean up the external link section. TantraYum (talk) 07:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Just reviewed the links- there is already one Satramana link- why do we need two? Sethie (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was my mistake. The change was not fully described. My apologies. No problem in reverting. The short stories page is not there now. So, I am removing the stories link. Rmuthukrishnan (talk)Rmuthukrishnan

Thanks.... not a big deal and sorry if I came off a bit harsh... I mainly do vandalism patroling now... so sometimes I am less then gentle. Appreciate your response. TantraYum (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead

This edit removed a lot of nuances. Take only

where he became aware of a "current" or "force" (avesam) which he recognised as his true "I" or "self," which he later identified with Ishvara. This resulted in a state that he later described as "the state of mind of Iswara or the jnani".

which is quite different from 'he became fully enlightened when he was 16. It's the 'fully enlightened' interpretation which comes from devotees, whereas the nuances come from his own descriptions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, none of this should go into lead, per MOS:LEAD. The interpretation was also there, I added nothing. In my view, the article needs some serious trimming. Lede should not resemble a hagiography.

Another sentence that I deleted and you reverted was that "upanayana... an initiation into the knowledge of the Self". That's nonsense for anyone who has ever witnessed one. Upanayana is a family event centred around a religious ceremony which in real life has virtually nothing to do with spiritual development. More with having guests and lots of sweets ;) Of course, devotees will always put a spiritual spin to every single activity that their guru has ever done, but please, it's an encyclopaedia!

Overall, I think that my edits were a good start to improving the article, with an objective to remove peacock and possibly reduce its size by at least half. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding upanayana, you only removed "and the knowledge of Self." Yet, the source nly says In his eighth year Venkataraman had his upanayana., so all of the traditional initiation of the three upper varnas into Brahmanical learning and the knowledge of Self. in interpretation, c.q. unsourced. But soit, that's not the main point here, is it? The hagiographic elements have been much worse before. Your which had a profound impact on him. is a concise summary, though. Nevertheless, i prefer the details, precisley because of this hagiographic tendency. His "death experience" was not wat his followers made of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Anyhow, most of his life story is based on what others have made out of their chats with him. As such, they should be (1) properly attributed, (2) devoid of those peackok words and all this devotee exaltation. BTW, sourcing to a blog contradicts WP:BLOGS.

See, personally I have a great deal of respect for RM. However, I can't stand all this idolising of leaders and gurus, which is so typical especially to South Asia. Why can't RM just "travel to Arunachala" but has to "journey to the most holy mountain of Arunachala", if you know what I mean? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I definitely know what you mean. Regarding blogs etc.: most of the sources on Ramana Mahasrhi are self-published and/or from the Ramana ashram. And the few secondary sources are mostly based on those primary sources...

David Godman is an interesting case, though. He's been the ashram-librarian for many years, and has published several books. Personally, I think that he too has interpreted Ramana Maharshi, but Bhagavan's death experience is a real nugget. Please read it. It contains the transcript of Narasimha Swami’s notes of his talks with RM on his death-experience, published in Self Realization chapter five - but in a redacted form, as Godman explains. It's really interesting; RM understood his death experience primarily in a Tamil 'folk' context, that is, as spirit possession, while his educated devotees re-interpreted his experience in a 'modern', that is, 'syncretistic' Advaita Vedanta ('neo-Vedanta') framework. Arunachala is also part of this Tamil 'folk' context: the embodiment of Shiva, just like RM was regarded as the embodiment of Shiva. That's quite different from the sanitized Advaita Vedanta re-interpretation!

Gabriele Ebert (2006), Ramana Maharshi: His Life is also interesting. It's a summary of primary sources, and self-published, but Ebert is theologian and provides insights into this Tamil 'folk' and Saivist context. One of the few sources which bother to look further, and provide a 'look behind the scenes'.

Also of interest is that his second death-experience was seen as self invoked by concurring swamis and their devotees, who did not hold RM in such a high regard. The criticism was so strong, that the appendix to Narasimha's biography detailed this second death experience. Why?!? I'd love to know more about these criticisms.

And regarding those death experiences: compare them to the symptoms of temporal lobe seizures, and you'll find compelling similarities... What's more, Arthur Osborne even states that RM had regular epileptic seizures. Fascinating, isn't it? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, I see the problem with sources. Ultimately, RM's life story will have to rely on his own words, unless anyone did independent research on his story (unlikely, especially in India of those days).

I think the debate re. āveśam is based on some sort of misunderstanding. As far as I remember Sanskrit (haven't used it for ages), āveśa would roughly mean "entry", "permeation", "pervasion". Permeation by what will be a matter of interpretation - local folklore might well use the word to mean "possession by a spirit/gods/daemons" while others could certainly give it a spin of "permeation by Brahman"; the word's meaning is certainly wide enough to allow for both interpretations. But I am not at all convinced that we should really try to recount it in detail: to me, it will be enough to wite that RM had a near-death experience which, in his own account, triggered his quest for the spiritual and his subsequent escape from home some six weeks later. Especially that we are talking lead section here. Writing instead that "...which he later recognised as his true Self", as in the article, is wrong IMHO, as it assumes that (1) "the true Self" exists (and, par consequence, that one or more "false Selves" exist), (2) that RM has recognised it correctly, (3) that the reader knows what all of this is all about. Whereas a BLP should not really require from the reader to adhere to any specific philosophy nor understand the concept of "realising the Self" [a poor translation of ātmajñāna]. And, again, it is lead section!

I am not competent enough to discuss RM's followers and disciples nor have access to those sources at the moment: it has been almost a quarter of century since I was into it. My intention was to do some sort of cleanup to this article after recent edits to Kashmir Shaivism [2]. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting, what you write about the menaing of avesam. I'll read the (Godman) again, to see if some nuance is missing here. As for your three points above, R< himself stated that he recognised this avesam as his true self. Point three is relevant, though I also think that some background is needed to understand what RM is about. In this case: RM is about Self-realization; you cannot ignore this. Compare it to Christianity: the concept of "God" may be alien to many (younger) westerners, yet you cannot skip it when introducing Christianity. But I'll ponder on it; you've got good points. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, first translation: "seizure"! yet, Godman writes:

There are two important points in this account that are not brought out in the published version. The first is Bhagavan’s repeated use of the word avesam to describe his initial perception of his experience. In Tamil the word means ‘possession’ in the sense of being taken over by a spirit. For the first few weeks Bhagavan felt that he had been taken over by a spirit which had taken up residence in his body. The second related point is that the feeling persisted until shortly before he left home. His discovery that the avesam was the Self, and not some external being residing in his body, may have been a contributory factor in his decision to leave home.

RM himself says, according to Narasimha, in translation:

My fear of death was some six weeks before I left Madurai for good. That was only on one day and for a short time. At the time there was a flash of excitement; it may roughly be described as ‘heat’, but it was not clear that there was a higher temperature in the body, nor was there perspiration. It appeared to be like some avesam or some spirit possessing me.

I felt that there was a force or current, a centre of energy playing on the body, continuing regardless of the rigidity or activity of the body, though existing in connection with it. It was that current, force or centre that constituted my Self, that kept me acting and moving, but this was the first time I came to know it. I had no idea of my Self before that.

This current, or avesam, now felt as if it was my Self, not a superimposition.

the awakening gave me a continuous idea or feeling that my Self was a current or force in which I was perpetually absorbed whatever I did

That avesam continues right up to now. After reading the language of the sacred books, I see it may be termed suddha manas [pure mind], akhandakara vritti [unbroken experience], prajna [true knowledge] etc.; that is, the state of mind of Iswara or the jnani.

Godman ends, writing

The term avesam does appear in the Self-Realisation account, but it is translated there as 'spirit, current or force'. The idea of possession is absent.]

And two comments from the comments-section:

first, the colloquial meaning of 'avesam' IS 'with force' which often might be construed as 'fiercely'...as i am trying to articulate this, the phrase 'may the force be with you'...comes to mind ;-)

linguistically speaking (although) i am somewhat proficient in sanskrit, i will stick to tamil here - the word vesam means 'role' or 'mask', and thus might be inferred to mean 'personality'. with the 'aa' at the beginning, it would then imply, 'with out any role or mask or personality'.....which is what one might describe the SELF as...

And:

'Avesam'(spelt as aavaesam) also has a colloquial usage in the spiritual lore and that is to mean: 'possessed'.And does not mean or denote Self or anything that u have written.It simply means possessed.Atleast this is true in South Indian languages like Telugu and Tamil.

So, yes, I do think he was talking about spirit-possession. But I also think you're right it could be interpreted as "Brahman," even Holy Spirit, if you like, though "sunyata" or "Buddha-nature" may also be apt. Anyway, it is the central element in the RM-narrative, so it does belong in the lead. But I'll further ponder on it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Epilepsy

In 2015, G.K. Pillai suggested that Ramana Maharshi suffered from epilepsy, in Monks are from Meditating Monkeys: Unravelling the Algorithm of True Spiritual Awakening. Now there is another publication which suggests epilepsy for Ramana Maharshi: Arun Shurie, Two Saints: Speculations Around and About Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Ramana Maharishi. See also The IndianExpress, The Mind of the Saints: Speculations around Ramakrishna Paramhansa and Ramana Maharishi. I think they're right; Ramana's death experiences are clear descriptions of temporal lobe epileptic seizures. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

From Epilepsy (WP, 26/3/2018 version):

"The diagnosis of epilepsy is typically made based on observation of the seizure onset and the underlying cause. An electroencephalogram (EEG) to look for abnormal patterns of brain waves and neuroimaging (CT scan or MRI) to look at the structure of the brain are also usually part of the workup. While figuring out a specific epileptic syndrome is often attempted, it is not always possible. Video and EEG monitoring may be useful in difficult cases."

Not infrequently is difficult to diagnose epilepsy with modern technology in living patients. In other words, this kind of claim is simply pseudoscience. Tempestive (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree... though an interesting premise, speculation should be handled with care. Badabara (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor Changes

I am very impressed with the structure, sources and content of this article. Kudos to everyone who has contributed to it.

There are a number of phrases, word choices and some grammatical choices that feel problematic to me, I have begun to change a few of them. Comments and feedback welcome. Sethie (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's nice to see a comprehensive page, but the wording can use some edits to bring a more natural feel. I will also give it a couple edits Badabara (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Badabara: This is a thread from 2.5 years ago. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: Ha, yes, I noticed that after I posted. I did do some grammar and sentence structure edits. Feel free to look them over.