Talk:Ramakrishna

so sensuality is avidyamaya and love is vidyamaya . . . where does sex fall?

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.

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.--LordSuryaofShropshire 23:17, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

>"so sensuality is avidyamaya and love is vidyamaya . . . where does sex fall?"

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).

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.

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 link to the Japanese version of this does not seem to be linking...... whomever knows how to fix it should. -gren

NPOV Dispute...

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...

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.

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?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 ! Ramashray 14:12, 24 Feb 2005 (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/ jodyrrr Mar 8, 2005

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? Emyth 19:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

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 !!

Ramashray 05:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

jodyrrr Sunday, March 13, 2005 10:10PM MST

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.

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

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, 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. Emyth 11:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

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 ??

Ramashray 06:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

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.

But before we do that, what problems do you have with the present article that prevent us from removing the POV tag from it? --goethean 16:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

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 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". goetheancould you help pls Ramashray 05:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ramashray, the differences between POV text and NPOV text can seem subtle. For example:

Ramakrishna often experienced the divine presence.

and:

Mahendranath Gupta wrote that Ramakrishna often experienced a divine presence.

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.

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? --goethean 16:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing NPOV tag. Article Ramakrishna Kathamrita may not be necessary; insted this article itself may be made to netural. Ramashray 04:41, 11 May 2005 (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 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.

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.

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. --goethean ॐ 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. --goethean ॐ 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? 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 — correctly — 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 — Ramakrishna's followers. It's too much to expect those with a physicalistic mentality to accept them as fact. So I labelled them as traditional accounts — stories. --goethean ॐ 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)