Talk:Ramakrishna

January 2016

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#January 2016

Greetings. My reverted edits to Ramakrishna should be reinstated on following grounds. If you disagree, let me know why.

• 1. My edit made to Ramakrishna is constructive because if it was not so, Prabuddha Bharata which is published by Ramakrishna Mission would not have published the article Advaita Vedanta and the Big Bang.
• 2. The Big Bang: Theory, Assumptions and Problems is a book with two editors. Cited article is one of the twelve chapters by different authors in the book. This chapter can be downloaded for free from ResearchGate: Consciousness and energy
• 3. All twelve chapters are listed on the publishers web site. So this book is like a secondary source. References 9 in this article is like the primary source.
• 4. V. H. Zaveri, Periodic relativity: basic framework of the theory. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. v.42, No.6, 1345--1374, (2010).
• 5. Two editors of the Nova book looked at this article and then invited the author to contribute a chapter for Nova book. Therefore my edit to Ramakrishna is not unsourced. The original research is given in Ref.(9), therefore WP:OR does not apply. The material described in my edit is from following two books which are being published for more than 100 years now, with millions of copies sold. Therefore my edit is not WP:UNDUE.

• Sri Ramakrisha The Great Master by Swami Saradananda, (tr.) Swami Jagadananda.
• The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda.

Above books available across the world at Vedanta Society bookstores.

Kingcircle (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

End of copied part

• If the emphasis is on Ramakrishna's teachings, then there are several problems:

• It should be in the Teachings-section, or in the Teachings of Ramakrishna article; not in this section;
• It should be shortened, and checked for its accuracy:

"Ramakrishna considered the Universe as waves arising from the Great Ocean (Brahman of Advaita Vedanta)(check?!?). According to Ramakrishna, Brahman and Sakti (Prakriti, energy)(check?!?) are identical. When thought of as inactive, He is called Brahman, and when thought of as active, the creator, preserver and destroyer, She is called Primordial Energy."'

• If the emphasis is on "Vikram Zaveri explains that this improved version of Advaita Vedanta solves some major problems in the big bang cosmology in explaining the presence of consciousness in the universe, the origin of energy and the relation between the two", then there are several problems:

• Vikram Zaveri is an "independent researcher"; that is, not WP:RS.
• It's WP:UNDUE.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Some more comments:

• The Prabuddha Bharata article contains only one Ramakrishna-quote:

"Sri Ramakrishna says: ‘The jnani, sticking to the path of knowledge, always reasons about the Reality, saying, “Not this, Not this”. Brahman is neither “this” nor “that”.’"

Not a valid source for the info you want to add.

• The Big Bang: Theory, Assumptions and Problems does not have a preview at Google; the source can't be checked.
• ResearchGate does contain an article by Zaveri though, also with the title Consciousness and energy. No reference to Ramakrishna in this article.
• That article looks like, ehm, not being representative of mainstream-theories on the Big Bang Theory...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The emphasis is on both, Ramakrishna's teachings as well the explanation of Vikram Zaveri, but Teachings-section is fine. We can add one more reference for following quote from abridged Gospel, Introduction - page 54.

"When Sri Ramakrishna thought of the Supreme Being as inactive--neither creating nor preserving nor destroying--He called Him Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal God. When he thought of Him as active--creating, preserving and destroying--he called Him Sakti or Maya or Prakriti, the Personal God."

The same thing is also explained in the Prabuddha Bharata article on page 35 at the beginning of the last paragraph before Notes and References:

"When the infinite motionless Consciousness becomes active—creating, preserving, and destroying—it acts like energy; when it remains inactive, it becomes the Unmanifest."

Therefore this is a valid source for the info I want to add. Beyond this if we change anything from my original edit, the whole thing may get distorted. Therefore best thing is to either accept the original edit with some modifications or drop the idea for now. Kingcircle (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to be valid info to me (Ramakrishna's views on Brahman/shakti), but it might be good to contextualize it a little bit. It's different from Advaita Vedanta, and closer to Tantra. That's relevant, because Vivekananda, while praising Ramakrishna, endorsed Advaita Vedanta, while he actually seems to have been closer to Tantra and bedhabedha than to Advaita Vedanta. But maybe that's too technical for the average reader? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ramakrishna has not deviated from Advaita Vedanta. This is clear from the next sentence of the same quote on page 54 of the abridged Gospel:

"But the distinction between them does not mean a difference. The Personal and Impersonal are the same thing, like milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its lustre, the snake and its wriggling motion. It is impossible to conceive of the one without the other. The Divine Mother and Brahman are one."

It differs from Advaita Vedanta in calling Prakriti as energy (Sakti) which definition comes from Tantra. Advaita Vedanta of Sankaracharya does not recognize energy as real because it is Maya (illusion) for them. But Ramakrishna describes both Brahman and Sakti as real. Sakti comes into existence when motionless Brahman begins to move. When Sakti stops moving it becomes Brahman again. Same thing is spoken in Bhagavad Gita verses (2.24) and (13.15).
Now energy (Sakti) and Motion are central to Physics. Therefore Ramakrishna's definition is the only one that can be related to Physics. Neither Sankaracharya nor any of the supporters of Bhedabheda speak about energy or motion. They are only concerned about individual soul and the Brahman.Kingcircle (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

(I've taken the liberty to copy-edit your response, to clearly distinguish the quote. I've also added a break, to distinguish the two sub-topics.)

Well, it's an interesting topic. Your main point seems to be to realte Ramakrishna to physics. Again, I'm not sure if this article is the proper place for such contributions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding relating Ramakrishna to physics, there is a comment in another article by Vikram Zaveri (Unified Field of Consciousness) which is "there is no clear line of demarcation between the material energy and the spiritual energy." For example, human thought is sort of spiritual energy but the sound wave is a physical energy. When a person speaks, his thoughts are translated into sound and other physical actions. Let me organise what we have discussed so far and put up an edit in the Teaching section and then we go from there. Kingcircle (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Introduction to quotes

Dear Joshua: Your latest edited version has mistakes.

"Ramakrishna's Tantric views were influenced by Totapuri's Advaita Vedanta lessons, integrating both world-views into a dynamic whole:" is a completely wrong heading for the quote.

The original heading in the Gospel is:
"Ramakrishna later described the significance of Totapuri's lesson:"

Explanation: Here the lesson is not by Totapuri to Ramakrishna but by Divine Mother to Totapuri. This incident is described in The Great Master. So the way reference was introduced in my original write up was correct. But the way you have introduced [86] is wrong. Both the quotes are in Gospel [87]. Actually the first quotation is what Ramakrishna taught his own Guru Totapuri but your heading says exactly opposite. Kingcircle (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

But it is totally inclear from this sentence what the context is, or what "Totapuri's lesson" refers to. The quote needs a clearer introduction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I've read the preceding text in The Great Master; I think I'm correct here. Totapuri introduced Ramakrishna to Advaita vedanta and nirvikalpa samadhi. At first, Ramakrishna wasn't able to reach nirvikalpa samadhi, because the Great Mother appeared again and again:

"But the radiant and too familiar figure of the Blissful Mother, the Embodiment of the essence of Pure Consciousness, appeared before me as a living reality. Her bewitching smile prevented me from passing into the Great Beyond. Again and again I tried, but She stood in my way every time." [1]

But within three days he succeeded. The author then describes the influence of this realisation on Ramakrishna. For Totapuri, the world is maya, illusion. Ramakrishna "acknowledged its power in the relative life" [2]. The author then states:

"after nirvikalpa samadhi, Sri Ramakrishna realized maya in an altogether new role. The binding aspect of Kali vanished from before his vision. She no longer obscured his understanding. The world became the glorious manifestation of the Divine Mother. Maya became Brahman. The Transcendental Itself broke through the Immanent. Sri Ramakrishna discovered that maya operates in the relative world in two ways, and he termed these "avidyamaya" and "vidyamaya"." [3]

Ramakrishna integrated Absolute and relative:

"The Divine Mother asked Sri Ramakrishna not to be lost in the featureless Absolute but to remain, in bhavamukha, on the threshold of relative consciousness, the border line between the Absolute and the Relative. He was to keep himself at the "sixth centre" of Tantra, from which he could see not only the glory of the seventh, but also the divine manifestations of the Kundalini in the lower centres. He gently oscillated back and forth across the dividing line. Ecstatic devotion to the Divine Mother alternated with serene absorption in the Ocean of Absolute Unity. He thus bridged the gulf between the Personal and the Impersonal, the immanent and the transcendent aspects of Reality." [4]

After describing what Totapuri, in turn, learned from Ramakrishna, the author then states:

"Sri Ramakrishna later described the significance of Totapuri's lessons:

"When I think of the Supreme Being as inactive — neither creating nor preserving nor destroying —, I call Him Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal God. When I think of Him as active — creating, preserving, and destroying —, I call Him Sakti or Maya or Prakriti, the Personal God. But the distinction between them does not mean a difference. The Personal and the Impersonal are the same thing, like milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its lustre, the snake and its wriggling motion. It is impossible to conceive of the one without the other. The Divine Mother and Brahman are one."" [5]

Actually, the author does not make clear what significance Ramakrishna describes in this quote; we have to deduce that ourselves. But if we link this qute to the preceding passages, it's clear that at first Totapuri and Ramakrishna had different views, but that Ramakrishna integrated both views in his experience - the transcendent and immanent, or the active and passive, et cetera. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You can get the clearer introduction from the preceding paragraphs of the Gospel which repeats in brief the detailed account of two incidents given in the Great Master(5th ed., v.1, pp.558-561). It starts on page 52 of Gospel under the heading Totapuri's Lesson. In short Toiapuri was a staunch Advaitin who dismiised the Mother Nature (Prakriti, Sakti, energy, Divine Mother, Mother Kali) as Maya (illusion), and not having a real existence. He considered Mother Kali as just a figment of imagination. So Divine Mother taught him a lesson that She was real and Totapuri was under her jurisdiction and unless she willed, Totapuri was not free even to die. Kingcircle (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

If this quote is about Totapuri's lesson (singular), then it sould be under the Ramakrishna#Totapuri and Vedanta section. Now we are interpreting a primary source... Aren't there better, more academical, sources on Ramakrishna's teachings? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have told you what is correct. Now you worry about the sections and primary sources and secondary sources and reliable sources and all that. I am out of it. Kingcircle (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Obvious error restored by User:Gbohoadgwwian

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

Removal of sourced info

@Ellis408: you removed a lot of sourced info; partly because it belongs in another section, according to you; partly because it is already covered. Unfortunately, you didn't bother to actually move the info you thought to belong somewhere else to the appropriate section, but just deleted it; you also deleted info which, contrary to your statement, was not covered elsewhere in the article. And this removed not just Kripal's argument, but also othe rinformation. Given this, your main objective seems to be to remove Kripal. And please discuss articles at the talkpage, not at offline discussions, as you proposed at here. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan - You are wrong that I want to remove Kripal, but rather give him appropriate coverage, given his minority views of Ramakrishna and the critical push back on his scholarship regarding Kali's Child. The book, Kali's Child, has a whole section within the Ramakrishna article, which gives Kripal's views, summarizes his book, and offers opposing views - we don't need to reiterate those same views in various sections of the RK article. There is also a whole separate article on Kali's Child.

I would like to open this discussion to Wikipedia editors who know nothing of Ramakrishna, to discuss if the numerous citations of Kripal in this article, outside the KC section, are excessive and promotional. I think so.

Let's go through my edits section by section - I'll put the deletions in quotes:

Bhakti and Tantra

"Jeffrey J. Kripal argued that Ramakrishna rejected Advaita Vedanta in favour of Shakti Tantra.[111]"

[1] I removed this quote as it's a reiteration of points made earlier in this section and throughout the article. Nobody argues that RK was a Jnani or Advaitist. There is no need for this quote – as it is saying the same things as the four quotes above it.

"Carl Olson argued that in his presentation of his master, Vivekananda had hid much of Ramakrishna's embarrassing sexual oddities from the public, because he feared that Ramakrishna would be misunderstood.[116] Tyagananda and Vrajaprana argue that Oslon makes his "astonishing claim" based on Kripal's speculations in Kali's Child, which they argue are unsupported by any of the source texts.[117]"

[2] I removed this paragraph as the points it makes belong to the KC section or the KC article – I didn’t move it to the KC section or KC article, as it’s the same argument that's already put forth there. Just because it's sourced doesn't mean it needs to be in the article. BTW - I've not touched the KC article or Kripal's personal article.

The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

"The principal source for Ramakrishna's teaching is Mahendranath Gupta's Sri Sri Ramakrishna Kathamrita, which is regarded as a Bengali classic.[77][78] Kripal calls it "the central text of the tradition"[79]"

[3] The additional quote from Kripal just reiterates the first sentence and is only promotional for Kripal. Isn't "principal source" and "central text" the same thing? Is it needed, or is it promotional?

Philosopher Lex Hixon writes that the Gospel is "spiritually authentic" and a "powerful rendering of the Kathamrita".[80][81]Malcolm Mclean[82] and Jeffrey Kripal argue that the translation is unreliable,[81] though Kripal's interpretation is criticized by Hugh Urban.[83]

[4] The second reference to the Lex Hixon quote, number 81, points to Kripal but is, in fact, a quote from Hixon. The second sentence is just another reiteration of what should be in the KC section. There is no need to reiterate the KC argument and rebuttal in every possible section.

God-realization

[5] The whole paragraph after first sentence is just another vehicle for the Kali’s Child debate, which belongs to the KC section or article, and doesn't fit in this section. Perhaps the KC section needs to be expanded to include those quotes you feel are important, but I deleted as either repetitive or non-sequester to the section.

[6] You also deleted my additional wording: "He [Ramakrishna] believed the Vedic teachings that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, lead to God-realization." That point was not made elsewhere and is important for understanding RK and the movement.

Islam and Christianity

"After three days of practice he had a vision of a "radiant personage with grave countenance and white beard resembling the Prophet and merging with his body".[62] Kripal writes that this "would have been a heretical experience through and through" for most Muslims.[58]"

[7] The last sentence is a promotional quote for Kripal and is not relevant. Kripal is not a Muslim scholar and how the various other religions of the world might view RK's experiences is not relevant for this article or section.

Joshua Jonathan, I hope you will take my comments seriously. I am a serious editor and do not add or delete things without serious consideration. If you look at my changes objectively, I would hope you agree that the arguments for Kripal's views and Kali's Child need to be in the Kali's Child section and article. Thank you. Ellis408 (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ellis408: thank you for your extensive reply; highly appreciated. I'll read them in detail later (just out of bed). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• ad [1], Advaita Vedanta, diff, edit-summary Deleted "Ramakrishna rejected Advaita Vedanta in favour of Shakti Tantra" as it's a reiteration of a point made earlier in this section and elsewhere.. Yes, they're saying more or less the same thng - so why remove this specific quote? The point is in the combination with the next subsection, "Transformation into neo-Vedantin": Ramakrishna was presented as an Advaitin by Vivekenanda and the like; scholars have correctly pointed out that this was areinterpretation (compare Ramana Maharshi).
• ad [2], Carl Olson, diff, subsection "Transformation into neo-Vedantin," edit-summary Removed paragraph that starts with "Carl Olson" - it's a re-statement of the Kali's Child argument - belongs in KC section.. I understand your argument, yet this paragraph is about the presentation of Ramakrishna by his followers, and the purging of some of his more erratic behaviour. Anything wrong with the source?
• ad [3], Ramakrishna Kathamrita, diff, edit-summary Removed unnecessary quote from first paragraph. It is a re-statement of first part of the sentence. Removed bad reference link - Hixon's quote was credited to Kripal. Removed ongoing disputed views of translations - well covered elsewhere.. You've got a point here. Yet, it also doesn't hurt to have this quote. I don't see how it is promotional for Jeffrey Kopal. Anyway, you could have kept the reference.
• ad [4], Hixon, same diff as [3]. I've removed the incorrect reference. The ongoing disputed views of translations is not covered elsewhere in this article; what you kept was Philosopher Lex Hixon writes that the Gospel is "spiritually authentic" and a "powerful rendering of the Kathamrita". That's looks like a breach of WP:NPOV.
• ad [5] , God-realization, diff, edit-summary Deleted Kali's Child argument - not part of this section. Added reference to the Vedas as basis of Ramakrishna's approach to the world's religions.. It seems to me that this is about a specific aspect of Ramakrishna's teaching, kamini-kanchana, not about Kripal's Kali's Child. It may be somewhat WP:UNDUE, though.
• ad [6], same diff as [5]. Is it a Vedic teaching that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, lead to God-realization? I don't think so. What you can state, though, is

He believed that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, lead to God-realization.

• ad [7], Islam and Christianity, diff, edit-summary Deleted quote about how most Muslims would feel about Ramakrishna's experiences; not relevant to this article. Also fixed two reference errors. I don't see how this is "promotional." Please ask an Indian muslim how they feel about this; I can guarantee you they won't like Ramakrishna's interpretations. It does matter in the Indian context; people die there for religion. Kripal rightly contrasts Ramakrishna's inclusive approach, and his claim that all religions lead to the same goal, with the way other religions look at their own tradition.
• Regarding the cite-errors: see Template:Sfn.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, thank you for your detailed reply. I'll look over your comments and edits and get back to you. Ellis408 (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record: I've added an additinal comment after your reply above, for the sake of comprehension. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joshua - I should explain what I mean by the number of Kripal citations being "promotional" for Kripal. I got into this while doing research for an article I'm working on, about how the West first came to know about RK and his followers and went to the Ramakrishna Wiki page. I noticed that Kripal was mentioned throughout the article, in ways that didn't seem to fit with the particular section or was needed for the overall article. There were also sloppy insertions of his name, like the Hixon quote being attributed to Kripal. There are hundreds of biographies written about Ramakrishna, many by notable historians, scholars, and notable authors. Kripal wrote one book on RK, that is both highly controversial and, according to Kali's Child Revisited, discredited for sloppy scholarship, mistaken translations, and misquotes. I counted 10 Kripal citations in the article, not including the footnotes. That's more than any other author, and some very notable authors of RK biographies are not mentioned at all - like Christopher Isherwood, who wrote Ramakrishna and His Disciples, perhaps the most popular English biography after the Gospel of Ramakrishna. I also noticed that many of the Kripal quotes have his name attached to the quote, where other quotes from authors and books only have the quote and a reference number in the article, and the author or book is only mentioned in the footnote. It all seemed quite imbalanced and improper to me - and still does. I was not familiar with the term until you pointed it out, but I guess my main objection falls into the category of WP:UNDUE Ellis408 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, on your point ad [6] - "Truth is One, Sages Call it Variously" - is from the Rig Veda, and is the foundation of the view that all religions can lead to God realization. It is Vedic in origin. Ellis408 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Good point. It's probably due to the shortcomings of Wikipedia: a public encyclopedia written by volunteers. Articles can be unbalanced, despite multiple editors working on it. The Vedic quote is interesting, though the original is a little bit different. I didn't know it. Did Ramakrishna himself have it as a motto, or is it from his 'neo-vedantin' followers. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joshua. Thank you for introducing me to the WP:UNDUE policy - the description of the policy exactly fits what I was trying to say.

Regarding the quote from the Rig Veda, I personally can't validate the translation: "Truth is One, Sages Call it Variously". That's roughly how I've always heard it. Google comes up with a few variations, but is clearly the same idea.

https://vedanta.org/what-is-vedanta/harmony-of-religions/ "“Truth is one; sages call it by various names,” the Rig Veda, one of Vedanta’s most ancient texts, declared thousands of years ago."

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/rig-veda-quote-truth-is-one.83895/ "The Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46 ...says : "ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti agnim yamam matariswanam ahuh" meaning Truth is One, but the learned refer to it in different names like agni, yama, matariswan."

http://yogananda.com.au/upa/Upanishads01.html "One of the most important verses of the Rig Veda (1.164.46) is The Reality (Truth) is ONE: the wise call It by various names. (Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti)"

I don't know if Ramakrishna quoted that verse of the Rig Veda directly - maybe he did, but his teachings clearly make the same point (these quotes are all from the first 200 pages of the Gospel of Ramakrishna, as listed by https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ramakrishna):

God can be realized through all paths. All religions are true. The important thing is to reach the roof. You can reach it by stone stairs or by wooden stairs or by bamboo steps or by a rope. You can also climb up by a bamboo pole. Page 111

With sincerity and earnestness one can realize God through all religions. The Vaishnavas will realize God, and so will the Saktas, the Vedantists and the Brahmos. The Mussalmans and the Christians will realize him too. All will certainly realize God if they are earnest and sincere. Page 124

I had to practise each religion for a time — Hinduism, Islām, Christianity. Furthermore, I followed the paths of the Śāktas, Vaishnavas, and Vedāntists. I realized that there is only one God toward whom all are travelling; but the paths are different. Page 129

One should not think, "My religion alone is the right path and other religions are false." God can be realized by means of all paths. It is enough to have sincere yearning for God. Infinite are the paths and infinite the opinions. Page 158

I'd like to change the current text to, "He believed and practiced that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, lead to God-realization. Ramakrishna's teaching reflects, “Truth is one; sages call it by various names”, a concept expressed in the Rig Veda, one of Vedanta’s most ancient texts..." (with a reference to https://vedanta.org/what-is-vedanta/harmony-of-religions/)

I don't recall a motto per se - but certainly the 'Truth is One' theme is what he lived by and was fundamental to his teaching. I also think that it was an important and attractive philosophy for his later followers - in India and the West. Aldous Huxley wrote about this concept in his book, The Perennial Philosophy, a collection of teachings of the religions of the world, expressing the same spiritual truths. Ramakrishna held that truth was the most important thing. In his monastic renunciation, he could give up everything but not Truth. Ellis408 (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46 says diff:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

It is specifically about Vedic gods, not about co-existing world-religions. See also Mandala 1. As a motto, it is definitely Neo-Vedanta, just like vedanta.org. Regarding certainly the 'Truth is One' theme is what he lived by and was fundamental to his teaching, this is how people like Vivekananda presented his teachings. I'm sure there exist more sources on this Ramakrishna/Neo-Vedanta universalism. Some Google-search titles that may be useful:

• Use of RV 1.164.46 to resolve contradictory statements in the Rigveda
• Paul Hedges (2014), Controversies in Contemporary Religion: Education, Law, Politics, Society, and Spirituality [3 volumes], p.197 ff (compare Nanak, p.198: "God is One")

And some standards:

• Rambachan, Anantanand (1994). The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas. [Honolulu]: University of Hawaii Press. ISBN 978-0-8248-1542-4.
• Sharf, Robert H. (2000), "The Rhetoric of Experience and the Study of Religion" (PDF), Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7 (11–12): 267–87
• De Michelis, Elizabeth (2005), A History of Modern Yoga: Patanjali and Western Esotericism, Continuum, ISBN 978-0-8264-8772-8
• Nicholson, Andrew J. (2014). Unifying Hinduism: philosophy and identity in Indian intellectual history. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231149877. ISBN 0231149875, OCLC 881368213 (266 pages), paperback
• King, Richard (2002), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Routledge

NB: Kali's Child has 257 citations at Google scholar; Kali's Child revisited, written by a former "associate minister of the Ramakrishna-Vedanta Society in Boston," has only six. I doubt if it is WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Truth is One"

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Vedanta Society vs. Ramakrishna Movement

Hi Joshua, I was reviewing all the edits over the last few days, and one thing stuck. In a two places you refer to "the Vedanta Society" - as in, "According to the Vedanta society, this is expressed in Rig Veda..." and "...rendered by the Vedanta Society as "Truth is one; sages call it by various names" The whole paragraph is:

Ramakrishna's darśhana, or religious practice and worldview, contained elements of bhakti, Tantra and Vedanta. Ramakrishna emphasised God-realisation as the supreme goal of all living beings. He believed and practiced that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, all lead to God-realization. According to the Vedanta society, this is expressed in Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46, "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan,"[78] rendered by the Vedanta Society as "Truth is one; sages call it by various names."[79]

There is no central "Vedanta Society". In the United States, there are many Vedanta Societies, each incorporated as an independent organization, who invites a Swami of the Ramakrishna Order to be the spiritual head of the Society. A better way to express this is either the Ramakrishna Order or the Ramakrishna Movement.

Also the word "Darshana", as used here, is not a term used by the Vedanta Societies or the Ramakrishna Order, They use "Darshan" to mean soaking in the spiritual atmosphere of a holy person or place. I think Darshana may be a Buddhist term - but is inappropriate here. I would suggest this wording for the paragraph:

Ramakrishna's religious practice and worldview, contained elements of bhakti, Tantra and Vedanta. Ramakrishna emphasised God-realisation as the supreme goal of all living beings. He believed and practiced that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, all lead to God-realization. According to the Ramakrishna Order, this concept is expressed in the Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46, "They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman. To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan,"[78] rendered by the Order as "Truth is one; sages call it by various names."[79]

I've got to reach out to someone who might know, if the "Truth is one; sages call it by various names." phrase is more historic than RK and the RK Order. For my money, "To what is One, sages give many a title" and "Truth is one; sages call it by various names." are just slight variations of an English translation from the original Sanskrit. Ellis408 (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

End of copied part

I've added "of Southern California" to "Vedanta Society," and removed "darsana." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I'm sorry, but I've got to push back on this Rig Veda issue. The understanding and reference to the Rig Veda translation as "Truth is One, Sages call it by various names" is far more widespread than just the Vedanta Society of Southern California, or the Vedanta Societies throughout America, or the Ramakrishna movement throughout the world. It's been stated that way by a vast array of other religious groups who point to the Rig Veda as stating that "Truth is One..." I think there may be a bias against this view by some Buddhists or those who don't accept the underlying implications of a Perennial Philosophy or Universalism. Just Google "Truth is One, sages call it by various names" and all the various versions of the translations will come up, from hundreds of different organizations - most outside of Ramakrishna Vedanta. The gods listed after the phrase are just a partial list of the various names common at the time and place. This is from the Wiki page on Mandala 1, and is the view accepted by the Ramakrishna movement:

Hymns such as the above in Mandala 1 led scholars such as Max Muller to describe the theology of Vedic religion as a form of henotheism.[1] Muller noted that the hymns of the Rigveda, the oldest scripture of Hinduism, mentions many deities, but praises them successively as the "one ultimate, supreme God", alternatively as "one supreme Goddess",[2] thereby asserting that the essence of the deities was unitary (ekam), and the deities were nothing but pluralistic manifestations of the same concept of the divine (God).[1][3][4]

The Vedic era conceptualization of the divine or the One, states Jeaneane Fowler, is more abstract than a monotheistic God, it the Reality behind and of the phenomenal universe, which it treats as "limitless, indescribable, absolute principle", thus the Vedic divine is something of a panentheism.[5] In late Vedic era, with the start of Upanishadic age (~800-600 BCE), from the henotheistic, panentheistic concepts emerge the concepts which scholars variously call nondualism or monism, as well as forms of non-theism.[5][6]

I suggest the following wording for the first paragraph under Teachings:

Ramakrishna's religious practice and worldview, contained elements of bhakti, Tantra and Vedanta. Ramakrishna emphasised God-realisation as the supreme goal of all living beings. He believed and practiced that the various religions of the world, through a variety of spiritual practices, all lead to God-realization, as expressed in the Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46, "To what is One, sages give many a title...", commonly rendered in English as "Truth is one; sages call it by various names."[79]

Let me know your thoughts. Ellis408 (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"Truth is One, sages call it by various names" may be widespread, nervertheless it's not the same as "To what is One, sages give many a title." Even less does the original text say that all religions lead to the same God-realization; that's a later interpretation. Worse, without any sources, it's WP:OR. See also William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion, p.70, who states that "the one" in verse 1.164.46 refers to Vāc, goddess of speech. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You said to discuss if there's a disagreement about an edit. You edited my changes to the section that includes a reference to "Truth is One..." interpretation of a passage in in the Rig Veda. I posted a detailed response to you, including suggested wording changes. I left the discussion on the talk page for three days, and after no response from you even though you made edits to the Rk article during that time. I finally posted the changes, and you reverted them with no discussion. I'm disappointed, but will continue to press this issue. This is not just about translation, but interpretation. Please just Google "Truth is One" and see the hundreds of religious organizations who cite this translation and interpretation. To not accept this POV is just pushing a different POV, specifically a belief that all religions do not lead to God realization. The Ramakrishna Order, and the hundreds of other religious organizations who utilize.their interpretation to communicate their philosophy. If needed I can create a list of those organizations, but it shouldn't be necessary. Please discuss. ---- Ellis408 (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ellis408: sorry, I hadn't read your post yet. Nevertheless, if hundreds of organisations interpret a text in s pecific way, then it's still that: interpretation. The whole notion of "God-realization" post-dates this Vedic text. And if ypu don't provide sources, there's no way to discuss your edit in a substantial way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, apology accepted. I really wish we had discussed the issue here, before you changed my edit - as I think, in the end, you'll see what I'm saying and why - and I believe you'll agree. I think there are four general issues I have with your notes in regards to "Truth is One...". I write this here, on your talk page, as I see this as a discussion between you and me, but if you feel it's possibly useful for others, feel free to re-post on the RK talk page.

Cultural issues of commonly used phrases

Translations and meaning

Arguing about the validity of another person's belief

Translation and meaning of Mandala 1, on Wikipedia

The cultural issues at work here is that the phrase, "Truth is One, Sages call it by various names (and the multiple minor variations of it), is so wide spread here in the US (and I believe other English speaking countries), that I'm surprised this has come up at all. I Googled, "truth is one" rig veda google books, and got over 114,000 results - most of them on-target, though with variations of the second part of the phrase, i.e. "Truth is one but wise men know it as many", etc. You said you were unfamiliar with this issue, when we started this discussion. Perhaps you should read Wiki's article on Hinduism's pluralism.Here's a passage from a general description of Hinduism, from a group that is not affiliated with the Ramakrishna Movement (Hindu American Foundation):

The worldview of pluralism is not just applicable to Hindus, but to all members of this universal family. Accordingly, Hinduism acknowledges not just the possibility, but also the existence of more than one path (religion) or way of relating to Truth (God). This true, unadulterated pluralism is captured in the ancient Sanskrit hymn:
Ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti
Truth is one, the wise call it by many names.

Here in the US, you see this phrase displayed in hundreds of meditation studios, Yoga studios, UU Churches, etc. You said, "Truth is One, sages call it by various names" may be widespread, nervertheless it's not the same as "To what is One, sages give many a title." Two issues about this - you're arguing against the translation and meaning that millions of Hindus and spiritual seekers of all faiths, translate this verse into English with the meaning that all paths, religions, spiritual practices, lead to the ultimate God, Ground of All Existence, The Source, or in Sanskrit, Brahman. Secondly, WP recognizes the existence and use of Common Knowledge:

Common knowledge is knowledge that is known by everyone or nearly everyone, usually with reference to the community in which the term is used.

Regarding the translation and meaning: this sub-section of the Ramakrishna article is not the place to argue either. This paragraph describes what Ramakrishna believed and practiced. In the edit I proposed, it is correct and factual. To argue against the translation and meaning is to argue against what millions of people believe and is central to their faith. I understand that there are some Buddhist, Christians, and others who don't believe the translation and/or meaning as I've described it, but that's arguing for a particular personal belief against another person's personal belief. Putting in the edits I suggest is not arguing for any particular translation or meaning, but describes RK's beliefs and practices, that are based on the "Truth is One...", derived from the Rig Veda. Here is a quote from Swami Prabhavananda's Religion and Practice, which ties the translation and meaning to Ramakrishna directly:

Sri Ramakrishna demonstrated this truth in his own life. Stressing the mystic experience, in his unique approach to various religions, Ramakrishna harmonized the conflicting concepts of God. His method was pragmatic, for he accepted no path as valid until he himself had followed it and proved its efficacy. With simplicity and sincerity, Sri Ramakrishna applied the teachings and methods of the divergent Hindu sects and found that they all led to the same divine realization. But that was not enough for him. Mohammedanism was active in India, and Christianity was well known. He practiced the disciplines of these religions also and verified the statement of the ancient seers: 'Truth is one; sages call it by various names.' In Sri Ramakrishna's words: 'So many religions, so many paths to reach one and the same goal.'

Mandala 1 as defined in Wikipedia is as follows:

Hymns such as the above in Mandala 1 led scholars such as Max Muller to describe the theology of Vedic religion as a form of henotheism. Muller noted that the hymns of the Rigveda, the oldest scripture of Hinduism, mentions many deities, but praises them successively as the "one ultimate, supreme God", alternatively as "one supreme Goddess", thereby asserting that the essence of the deities was unitary (ekam), and the deities were nothing but pluralistic manifestations of the same concept of the divine (God).

:::The Vedic era conceptualization of the divine or the One, states Jeaneane Fowler, is more abstract than a monotheistic God, it the Reality behind and of the phenomenal universe, which it treats as "limitless, indescribable, absolute principle", thus the Vedic divine is something of a panentheism. In late Vedic era, with the start of Upanishadic age (~800-600 BCE), from the henotheistic, panentheistic concepts emerge the concepts which scholars variously call nondualism or monism, as well as forms of non-theism.

References

I'm traveling right now, but I have many reference books at home on Hinduism, Interfaith Gatherings (including the two-volume proceedings of the Parliament of the World's Religions of 1893, published at the time), Huxley's Perennial Philosophy, Prabhavananda's Spiritual Heritage of India<ref>Spiritual Heritage of India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_Heritage_of_India_(book), which was used as a textbook in University level courses on religion and philosophy, and many others. But, I promise you there are hundreds of contemporary and historic citations of this same translation and this meaning. I hope you will revert to my edits, without me having to provide more research. Please let me know.

In conclusion, the section describes what Ramakrishna practiced and believed. It is not about the accuracy of the translation or the interpretation of the Rig Veda's meaning, or even about how popular this phrase and meaning are. It's just a description of what he believed and the basis of his belief. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

In answer your reply:

• Your conclusion that it is a commonly used phrase is your personal conclusion. I attended you to William A. Graham, Beyond the Written Word: Oral Aspects of Scripture in the History of Religion, p.70, who states that "the one" in verse 1.164.46 refers to Vāc, goddess of speech. The motto found at hundreds of meditation studios, Yoga studios, UU Churches, etc. is typical for Neo-Vedanta. Religious pluralism#Hinduism is a mix of unsourced statements and WP:OR, not worth of keeping. And see California textbook controversy over Hindu history for the credits of the Hindu American Foundation.
• The Ramakrishna-article is definitely a place to argue about the translation and meaning of this specific Vedic text. "Truth is One" is an interpretation, which deviates from the original text. Did Ramakrishna himself interpret this text this way - did he even refer to this text? Or did his followers, his biographer? As far as I can see, it's Swami Prabhavananda's interpretation, an outspoken Neo-Vedantin, who's translation of the Vivekacudamani ha 's been qualified as 'bordering on the simplistic (John Grimes, The Vivekacudamani of Sankaracarya Bhagavatpada: An Introduction and Translation, Preface, note 7. Probably not WP:RS.
• Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on personal beliefs.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Gospel of Ramakrishna

@Ellis408: regarding this edit, which exact edition of the "Gospel of Ramakrishna"are you referring to? Publication-date, isbn? Is this the text? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 01:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for digging into this. You've made me a better editor, but I have to brush up and learn more. I don't know that website. I mentioned I was travelling - but when I got home I looked up the quote in a Concordance I have of the Gospel. I took it directly from the 1942 Edition: Mahendranath Gupta, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, 1942 edition, isbn 978-0-911206-01-2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellis408 (talk • contribs) 6 august 2019 (UTC)

Here and [www.vedanta-nl.org/GOSPEL.pdf here] are links. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)