Jump to content

Talk:Ramakrishna: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
so sensuality is avidyamaya and love is vidyamaya . . . where does sex fall?
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 80K
|counter = 10
|algo = old(20d)
|archive = Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Article history
|action1=WPR
|action1date=09:04, 4 October 2008
|action1link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Ramakrishna
|action1result=reviewed
|action1oldid=242917210


|action2=WPR
: That's so simplistic as to miss the point. Sex if it is governed within a dharmic life is fine. Hinduism hails [[samsara]] (in the context of a career and married life) as a vital and important aspect of humanity. If one loses control of it and sex/sensuality ([[kama]]) becomes the end unto itself, one is being steeped in illusory (maya) ignorance (avidya). As for love, it has many forms. It's not just one thing, as you should know. Vidyamaya is also not complete enlightenment. It is still illusion. Until one ''is'' undifferentiated enlightenment, there is always an essence of ignorance. Not that this is bad. The world is fine, but one should be aware of oneself, one's actions.
|action2date=06:29, 24 October 2008
|action2link=Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Peer review/Ramakrishna
|action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=246862644


|action3=GAN
: Shri Ramakrishna once explicated the difference between [[maya]] and [[daya]] (compassion). Maya is attachment ('love') for one's family and friends, one's own little social circle. Daya, compassion, is love for all people, beings, animals, in the world. Those who are enlightened, like the [[Buddha]] or [[Swami Vivekananda]], knew love and were love. I recommend you find (on the internet or whatever) a book called "The Gospel of Shri Ramakrishna" (in [[Bengali]] ''Shri Ramakrishna Charitamrit''). It explains his view of Hinduism perfectly.--[[User:LordSuryaofShropshire|LordSuryaofShropshire]] 23:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
|action3date=16:26, 27 January 2009
|action3link=Talk:Ramakrishna/GA1
|action3result=not listed
|action3oldid=266765815


|topic=philrelig
>"so sensuality is avidyamaya and love is vidyamaya . . . where does sex fall?"
|currentstatus=FGAN
|otd1date=2018-08-16|otd1oldid=855054200
|otd2date=2020-02-18|otd2oldid=941231327
}}
{{Indian English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |living=no |collapsed=yes |class=B|vital=yes|listas=Ramakrishna|1=
{{WikiProject Biography|old-peer-review=yes}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=high|history=yes|history-importance=high|bengal=yes|bengal-importance=high|assess-date=April 2012}}
{{WikiProject British Empire|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Swami Vivekananda|importance=High|assessed=September 2013}}
{{WikiProject Hinduism|vedanta=yes|importance =Top}}
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=high|philosopher=yes|religion=yes|eastern=yes}}
{{WikiProject Spirituality|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Mysticism |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}}
{{WikiProject Saints|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Yoga|importance=high}}
}}


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


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


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


the paper does not say this and by restoring an incorrect phrase, Gbohoadgwwian is taking the BURDEN to be repsonsible for adding mistakes to wikipedia.
the link to the Japanese version of this does not seem to be linking...... whomever knows how to fix it should. -[[user:grenavitar|gren]]


i have read this paper, and this is not what the Martin Cohen paper says.


The paper is this


Cohen, Martin (2008). "Spiritual Improvisations: Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and the Freedom of Tradition". Religion and the Arts. BRILL. 12 (1–3): 277–293. doi:10.1163/156852908X271079.
== NPOV Dispute... ==


See this https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ramakrishna&diff=833953063&oldid=833939069
Reading this entry in our wikipedia I am struck by the extreme single-sidedness of it as an introduction to Ramakrishna and his legacy. He is blatantly called "a man of God" and his impact on the world is judged to be "tremendous"... It makes me suspect that it is written by the Ramakrishna Mission...


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


The section is WAY to much for Tota Puri. He was one of Ramakrishna's gurus, but has a massive presence in the section about Ramakrishna's sadhana. Need to move much (almost all) to a Tota Puri article. I've encountered this Toda Puri empathisis before, including claiming that Puri was his only guru, which runs contrary to RK's whole outlook on the various religions and teachers. Puri wasn't the first or last.
We should strive for a NPOV stance in our articles. I know that there is a controversial discussion of Ramakrishna, his spirituality and his legacy going on and I want it to be represented in the article in the proper, agreed upon manner... But I do not want to be "flamed" and become involved in an "edit war" when/if I add information and links about it... Fair warning, no?[[User:Emyth|Emyth]] 22:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
: Dear Emyth,
: I dont think the article is 'extremely' single sided. But there is lot of scope for improvement. The impact of Ramakrishna, Vivekananda on the renaissance that followed in Bengal has been tremendous - acknowledged by Subhas Bose, S. Radhakrishnan, Rajagopalachari etc. The mission runs around 600 educational institutions and has not been affected by any controversies. Vivekananda is treated as the face of modern day Hinduism by most of the sects of Hinduism.
: The experience of Samadhi etc. themselves warrant separate articles and all mystics - most recently Ramana Maharshi - have tried to explain about what happens when one attains samadhi. They say that our language system as it exists is based on the perception of the world through our 5 sense organs and is incapable of fully describing super-conscious states such as samadhi. I would appreciate if somebody starts a wikistub on samadhi.
: Every great character such as the Christ, Muhammad etc. have been made controversial by scholars. Relavent sections on them in wikipedia do not include those details, though ! I am not telling that there should not be NPOV stance. But let us judge for ourselves what the scholars really say and how sincere they are, else there will be "edit wars". What few "scholars" opine, should not become basis for controversy. The Britannica had a section on Sri Ramakrishna and only reference book it suggested was "Kali's child"- not including even Kathamrita, Lilaprasanga etc. That is certainly not NPOV :)
: Last, i did study in Ramakrishna mission school and your fair warning has been noticed ! [[User:Ramashray|Ramashray]] 14:12, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Any others feel this way? [[User:Ellis408|Ellis408]] ([[User talk:Ellis408|talk]]) 16:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
::The Wikipedia entry for Ramakrishna is unabashed hagiography. For a full and clear discussion of the issues regarding Ramakrishna's sexuality, please see: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/ [[User:jodyrrr|jodyrrr]] Mar 8, 2005


:Yes, I too feel this way. The section on Tota Puri blocks the reader from the rest of the article following it by it's sheer size. [[User:RamasSquirrel|RamasSquirrel]] ([[User talk:RamasSquirrel|talk]]) 02:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is some of the material I knew was out there; thank you for the reference. (I hope that anyone who joins this discussion will sign their contributions so we can keep this civil. I am really put off by the tone, the ad hominum attacks etc. that characterize that dispute. I hope we can rise above that here.) At this point I am working on a response to Ramashray's comments. If one actually goes to the articles on the characters he mentions, one will find a difference in their treatment that we would do well to follow here; e.g. There are artilces about [[Jesus]] as well as [[Christ]]. And they are scholarly and encyclopedic. Controversy is not swept under the rug or erased; it is right there out front and dealt with in as NPOV as possible. If we work harder, then this article can rise to wikipedia standards. If one wants to read a treatment of Ramakrishna as a "saint" then there will be links to the Ramakrishna Mission site... One will also be able to follow links to the scholarly "opinion" that devotees may find offensive, even blasphemous, as well. That is what NPOV means, no? [[User:Emyth|Emyth]] 19:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
::I am also in favor for creating another article for Tota Puri as currently there is none. [[User:RamasSquirrel|RamasSquirrel]] ([[User talk:RamasSquirrel|talk]]) 02:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


== Ramakrishna's Given Name ==
: Dear Emyth,
: Pls dont waste your time in preparing a response to my comments. Its not necessary. Whatever your response be on Ramakrishna, it will be based on Jeffry Kripal's work. The author neither knows how to read nor how to write in Bengali. The mission, monastic order and Ramakrishna-Vivekananda are held in very high esteem in India and even people from other 'faiths' such as dwaita, vishistadwaita etc. look upon Ramakrishna with great reverence. In fact, before Kripal's work, the sources which he uses such as Kathamrita and Leelaprasanga have been read by millions in India (both scholars and lay people) and such interpretations as Kripal makes occurred to nobody.
: So before commenting on anybody who belongs to 'other' culture, it is necessary to understand their culture.
: I would like to point out several scholarly articles and the user comments which have appeared in this connection at http://www.sulekha.com
: columnists such as Rajeev Srinivasan (address at IITM alumni), S. N. Balagangadhara (India and her traditions), Sankrant Sanu ( http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305899), Rajeev Malhotra etc. have written extensively on the same. Please read them once. Just for the sake of making an article 'imapartial' we should not be putting what every other person says, right ?
: As regarding Jodyrr's link - it is difficult to get full and clear discussion as most of the Indians, who are spiritually oriented and are authority on the lives of Gurus dont have internet access !!
:[[User:Ramashray|Ramashray]] 05:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


This is about a change to the birth name of Ramakrishna. I changed this:
:: Rajeev Malhotra's critique of Kali's Child is refuted here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/tantrictruth.html
:: Swami Tyagananda's is answered here: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~kalischi/textuality.html
:: [[User:jodyrrr|jodyrrr]] Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:10PM MST


::'''Ramakrishna Paramahansa''' ([[Bengali language|Bengali]]: রামকৃষ্ণ পরমহংস, <small>[[Romanization of Bengali|romanized]]:</small> ''Ramôkṛṣṇo Pôromohôṅso''; pronounced [[Help:IPA/Bengali|[ramɔkriʂno pɔromoɦɔŋʃo]]] <sup>[[:File:Ramakrishna.ogg|ⓘ]]</sup>, 18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), also spelled '''Ramakrishna Paramahamsa''', born '''Gadadhar Chattopadhay...'''
:::I'm a Vedantist, and I have to admit that while the article certainly expresses some of my feelings and beliefs, it is far from neutral.


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


::'''Ramakrishna Paramahansa''' ([[Bengali language|Bengali]]: রামকৃষ্ণ পরমহংস, <small>[[Romanization of Bengali|romanized]]:</small> ''Ramôkṛṣṇo Pôromohôṅso''; pronounced [[Help:IPA/Bengali|[ramɔkriʂno pɔromoɦɔŋʃo]]] <sup>[[:File:Ramakrishna.ogg|ⓘ]]</sup>, 18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), also spelled '''Ramakrishna Paramahamsa''', born '''Ramakrishna Chattopadhay...'''
'''NPOV Dispute RESOLVED?''' - After 2+ months of work, I suggest that we have an article that is well on its way to being NPOV and encyclopedic. As the person who invoked the NPOV Dispute in the first place, I am tentatively suggesting that we might consider removing it. Not that our task is finished; there is more work to do; but if you, [[User:Ramashray|Ramashray]], agree that what we have is a disinterested, neutral review of the facts and NOT a slanderous [[jeremiad]] against your guru, then I feel that we can move on. Are we agreed? Or have I entirely misread the situation....Let me know...Thanks. [[User:Emyth|Emyth]] 11:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


It is quite common for Bengalis to use nicknames - even various nick names for the same people. Research into original documents has brought forward information that was unavailable or overlooked before. Here was the line of thinking about the Ramakrishna birth name:
:Dear all,
: May i request the members to consider [[Draft/Sri Ramakrishna]], article insted of the present one ? The article contains the previous contributions of members, includes more details on [[Sri Sarada Devi]], also link to Kali's child !! As an Indian and one associated with Ramakrishna mission, i find the article more informative and encyclopidic. The previous article has something about vidyamaya and avidyama etc. which were not very clearly put in... I must also thank [[User: Swami Vimokshananda]] for this article.
:What say others ??
: [[User:Ramashray|Ramashray]] 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Most books just quote earlier books about Ramakrishna, that his childhood name was Gadadhar - but without a reference or primary source. A few books claim that the name Ramakrishna was given by Tota Puri during an initiation. Other's claim the name was given by Mathur Babu (the Rani's son-in-law and manager of the temple), again without primary sources.
::Ramashray, I am a follower of Ramakrishna, but the article at [[Draft/Sri Ramakrishna]] in its current form is not acceptable for a neutral encyclopedia. I believe that the ''Ramakrishna Kathamrita'' is factual. But most people in the wider world do not. Just as the [[Jesus]] article must present the views and evidence both of Jesus' followers and of unbelievers, so must this article for Ramakrishna. I believe that most of the text in that article could be ''merged'' with the present article, but it must be done in an encyclopedic, neutral way. I would be happy to try to help you do that.


However, in M's ''Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita,'' he quotes a deed signed in 1861 by the Rani Rasmani (who owned Dakshineswar, the temple where Ramakrishna lived for over thirty years) that in 1858 "Ramakrishna" was paid a monthly stipend of 5 rupees and 3 pairs of cloth. Tota Puri didn't come to the temple until 1864.<ref>{{cite book |last= Chetanananda |first= Swami |date= 2003|page=311|title= Sri Ramakrishna and his divine play |publisher= Vedanta Society of St. Louis|isbn= 978-0916356811}}</ref>
::But before we do that, what problems do you have with the present article that prevent us from removing the POV tag from it? --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] 16:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


In Swami Phabhananda's book, ''More About Ramakrishna'',<ref>{{Cite book |last=Prabhananda |title=More About Ramakrishna |publisher=Advaita Ashrama, |year=1993 |isbn=978-8175050778 |edition=1st |location=India |pages=23 |language=English}}</ref> the first chapter is titled ''Who Gave the Name Ramakrishna and When?,'' he points out that the family was devoted to the Hindu deity [[Rama]] (the family deity was Sri Raghubir, an epithet of Rama), and the male children of Khudiram and Chandramani were all given names that started with Ram or Rama: Ramkumar, Rameswar, and Ramakrishna.
::: Dear Goethean,
::: I have no objection in removing the POV tag. But i could not clearly understand why the tag was put in first place and what great change has been done to the article (except putting Kali's child article, for which i have no objection. But mere addition of such an article makes it netural ??). I request [[User:Emyth|Emyth]] to remove the tag. Also consider merging the contents of draft with present article. I would like to see the present article to include materials which would then can become aids for "Indain renaissance" and "Bhakthi movement". [[User:Goethean|goethean]]could you help pls [[User:Ramashray|Ramashray]] 05:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


Also, Ramakrishna confirmed this himself, as recorded in the original "M" diaries, recently translated by Swami Chetanananda from copies of the hand written Bengali originals, "I was a pet child of my father. He used to call me Ramakrishnababu."
::::Ramashray, the differences between POV text and NPOV text can seem subtle. For example:


Note: Prabhananda was the historian of the Ramakrishna Order and for a long time was head of the Institute of Culture in Calcutta, where visiting scholars can study and access the archives of the Order.<ref>Biography of Swami Prabhananda[https://belurmath.org/past-vicepresidents/swami-prabhananda/]</ref> For more than 40 years, Chetanananda has been re-translating key books of the Order's history and writing about Ramakrishna, Sarada Devi and their disciples, referring to the most authoritative sources in the original Bengali, adding to, and correcting, the Order's history.<ref>Profile of Swami Chetanananda and the St. Louis Vedanta Society in the St. Louis Post Dispatch [https://www.stltoday.com/life-entertainment/local/faith-values/vedanta-society-offers-respite-from-religious-extremism/article_653fa0b2-b4e5-5505-9c04-3b015b918e5c.html]</ref><ref>[[Vedanta_Society#Vedanta_Society_of_St._Louis|Vedanta Society of St. Louis]]</ref>
Ramakrishna often experienced the divine presence.


[[User:Ellis408|Ellis408]] ([[User talk:Ellis408|talk]]) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::::and:


::Can anyone give any relevant reference about his birth name? Maybe from Kathamrita. I think it was Gadadhar which is commonly accepted.[[User:Mikemarssss|Mikemarssss]] ([[User talk:Mikemarssss|talk]]) 11:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Mahendranath Gupta wrote that Ramakrishna often experienced a divine presence.


:::The references are listed below. It seems that the Order is correcting the record, based on research and recent translations. Gadadhar was certainly his boyhood nickname. The male given names seems to back this up - Ramkumar, Rameswar, and Ramakrishna. And when Ramakrishna joined Ramkumar at Dakshineswar, he would have used his proper name, not a boyhood nickname. Thank you [[User:Ellis408|Ellis408]] ([[User talk:Ellis408|talk]]) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
::::The first is unacceptable to Wikipedia because it implies that the divine exists, and that Ramakrishna experienced it. The second statement merely describes what M wrote. It implies nothing about god or divinity. These subtle differences are extremely important to Wikipedia.


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


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


If "Ramakrishna" was his given name, what was his sannyas name?[[User:Oliver Puertogallera|Oliver Puertogallera]] ([[User talk:Oliver Puertogallera|talk]]) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
::::: Thanks for removing NPOV tag. Article Ramakrishna Kathamrita may not be necessary; insted this article itself may be made to netural. [[User:Ramashray|Ramashray]] 04:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)


:In Hindu tradition, those gurus who are considered an [[Avatar]] have the same given name and sannyasa name. Thus Shankara and Ramakrishna who are considered as avatars had no name change, but gurus like Ramanuja (given name: Ilaiyalvar) and Madhvacharya (given name: Vāsudeva) who aren't considered as avatars had their names changed after taking up sannyasa. This is the reason which a Hindu scholar gave for the unchanged names of some gurus after taking up sannyasa. [[User:Rim sim|Rim sim]] ([[User talk:Rim sim|talk]]) 13:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
:hi folks, the present article is below par, I'm afraid. The [[Draft/Ramakrishna]] isn't good, either. The draft looks like a copied text from a usual Ramakrishna Paramahamsa book that we get from Ramakrishna Mission. Someone has to take up the task of presenting more *facts* about this great soul and write it in an order that makes sense. The present article didn't make much sense to me when I read it. Having read a lot about Sri RKM, I believe that the article doesn't do justice in telling what it should, to those who're reading about him for the first time. Look at the article from a "reading for the first time about him" perspective. Beside that, the article needs to be categorised and made more encyclopedic.

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

== Erotic Passions & the Quest for the Divine ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== replace with draft article ==

hi all,
I propose to replace the current article on Ramarkishna with [[Draft/Ramakrishna]], which is more elaborate. We can then work to improve the language and content of that article.

[[User:Ramashray|Ramashray]] 15:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:No way. The draft article is not from a neutral pont of view. It incorporates material that is widely disputed. This material must be rendered neutral before it is incorporated. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>&#2384;</big> 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:I have inserted the text from the draft article under the section "Traditional biography". If anyone has problems with my edits and additions, let's discuss it here on that talk page. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>&#2384;</big> 16:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

::I have some problems! The very first line…''was a Bengali religious leader'' is jarring. Just because he was born in Bengal you don’t call him ''Bengali''. That smacks of Indian parochialism. Ramakrishna was a universalistic as was Jesus and Buddha. At the most one can say that he was born in Bengal (give the name of the village, if you like). Secondly the term ''Traditional'' has been (ab)used in all the five paras. Do you mean that the life story is not authentic? What are those events that you consider not authentic? Christopher Isherwood says that “Ramakrishna's life, being comparatively recent history, is ''well documented''. In this respect, it has the advantage over the lives of other earlier phenomena of a like nature.” If it is so, did you compare with the ''well documented'' books available? [[User:61.0.164.101|61.0.164.101]] 12:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:::I find your first point very odd. He ''was'' Bengali. Yes, Jesus was universalistic, but the Wikipedia entry on him starts out &mdash; correctly &mdash; by calling him Jewish.

:::As for your second, I agree with Isherwood that Ramakrishna's life is very well documented, especially compared to that of Jesus or the Buddha. But what we have here are essentially stories, mostly promulgated by partisans &mdash; Ramakrishna's followers. It's too much to expect those with a physicalistic mentality (see [[User:Emyth|Emyth]]'s comments above) to accept them as fact. So I labelled them as traditional accounts &mdash; stories. --[[User:Goethean|goethean]] <big>&#2384;</big> 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:22, 25 September 2024

Former good article nomineeRamakrishna was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 4, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
October 24, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
January 27, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 16, 2018, and February 18, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Obvious error restored by User:Gbohoadgwwian

[edit]

The statement about the Cohen paper was plain wrong.

the paper does not say this and by restoring an incorrect phrase, Gbohoadgwwian is taking the BURDEN to be repsonsible for adding mistakes to wikipedia.

i have read this paper, and this is not what the Martin Cohen paper says.

The paper is this

Cohen, Martin (2008). "Spiritual Improvisations: Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, and the Freedom of Tradition". Religion and the Arts. BRILL. 12 (1–3): 277–293. doi:10.1163/156852908X271079.

See this https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ramakrishna&diff=833953063&oldid=833939069

Tota Puri

[edit]

The section is WAY to much for Tota Puri. He was one of Ramakrishna's gurus, but has a massive presence in the section about Ramakrishna's sadhana. Need to move much (almost all) to a Tota Puri article. I've encountered this Toda Puri empathisis before, including claiming that Puri was his only guru, which runs contrary to RK's whole outlook on the various religions and teachers. Puri wasn't the first or last.

Any others feel this way? Ellis408 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too feel this way. The section on Tota Puri blocks the reader from the rest of the article following it by it's sheer size. RamasSquirrel (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also in favor for creating another article for Tota Puri as currently there is none. RamasSquirrel (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna's Given Name

[edit]

This is about a change to the birth name of Ramakrishna. I changed this:

Ramakrishna Paramahansa (Bengali: রামকৃষ্ণ পরমহংস, romanized: Ramôkṛṣṇo Pôromohôṅso; pronounced [ramɔkriʂno pɔromoɦɔŋʃo] ⓘ, 18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), also spelled Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, born Gadadhar Chattopadhay...

To this:

Ramakrishna Paramahansa (Bengali: রামকৃষ্ণ পরমহংস, romanized: Ramôkṛṣṇo Pôromohôṅso; pronounced [ramɔkriʂno pɔromoɦɔŋʃo] ⓘ, 18 February 1836 – 16 August 1886), also spelled Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, born Ramakrishna Chattopadhay...

It is quite common for Bengalis to use nicknames - even various nick names for the same people. Research into original documents has brought forward information that was unavailable or overlooked before. Here was the line of thinking about the Ramakrishna birth name:

Most books just quote earlier books about Ramakrishna, that his childhood name was Gadadhar - but without a reference or primary source. A few books claim that the name Ramakrishna was given by Tota Puri during an initiation. Other's claim the name was given by Mathur Babu (the Rani's son-in-law and manager of the temple), again without primary sources.

However, in M's Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, he quotes a deed signed in 1861 by the Rani Rasmani (who owned Dakshineswar, the temple where Ramakrishna lived for over thirty years) that in 1858 "Ramakrishna" was paid a monthly stipend of 5 rupees and 3 pairs of cloth. Tota Puri didn't come to the temple until 1864.[1]

In Swami Phabhananda's book, More About Ramakrishna,[2] the first chapter is titled Who Gave the Name Ramakrishna and When?, he points out that the family was devoted to the Hindu deity Rama (the family deity was Sri Raghubir, an epithet of Rama), and the male children of Khudiram and Chandramani were all given names that started with Ram or Rama: Ramkumar, Rameswar, and Ramakrishna.

Also, Ramakrishna confirmed this himself, as recorded in the original "M" diaries, recently translated by Swami Chetanananda from copies of the hand written Bengali originals, "I was a pet child of my father. He used to call me Ramakrishnababu."

Note: Prabhananda was the historian of the Ramakrishna Order and for a long time was head of the Institute of Culture in Calcutta, where visiting scholars can study and access the archives of the Order.[3] For more than 40 years, Chetanananda has been re-translating key books of the Order's history and writing about Ramakrishna, Sarada Devi and their disciples, referring to the most authoritative sources in the original Bengali, adding to, and correcting, the Order's history.[4][5]

Ellis408 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone give any relevant reference about his birth name? Maybe from Kathamrita. I think it was Gadadhar which is commonly accepted.Mikemarssss (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references are listed below. It seems that the Order is correcting the record, based on research and recent translations. Gadadhar was certainly his boyhood nickname. The male given names seems to back this up - Ramkumar, Rameswar, and Ramakrishna. And when Ramakrishna joined Ramkumar at Dakshineswar, he would have used his proper name, not a boyhood nickname. Thank you Ellis408 (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chetanananda, Swami (2003). Sri Ramakrishna and his divine play. Vedanta Society of St. Louis. p. 311. ISBN 978-0916356811.
  2. ^ Prabhananda (1993). More About Ramakrishna (1st ed.). India: Advaita Ashrama,. p. 23. ISBN 978-8175050778.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  3. ^ Biography of Swami Prabhananda[1]
  4. ^ Profile of Swami Chetanananda and the St. Louis Vedanta Society in the St. Louis Post Dispatch [2]
  5. ^ Vedanta Society of St. Louis


If "Ramakrishna" was his given name, what was his sannyas name?Oliver Puertogallera (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Hindu tradition, those gurus who are considered an Avatar have the same given name and sannyasa name. Thus Shankara and Ramakrishna who are considered as avatars had no name change, but gurus like Ramanuja (given name: Ilaiyalvar) and Madhvacharya (given name: Vāsudeva) who aren't considered as avatars had their names changed after taking up sannyasa. This is the reason which a Hindu scholar gave for the unchanged names of some gurus after taking up sannyasa. Rim sim (talk) 13:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramakrishna&oldid=1247734746"