Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Reception"

The previous "Reception" reads like a incoherent collection of facts. But again, later the cherry picked quotes related to sexuality and psychoanalysis were indiscriminately added. I am providing a meaning full title, "Views and Studies" and organizing incoherent materials under : "Religious School of thought", "Psychoanalysis and Sexuality", "Postcolonial studies". And this time, we are not going to base this section on any "analysis", nor will an editor decide who is "notable" and who gets into the article. No! The article will provide a complete picture, giving equal weightage to all studies and all scholars and not just sexuality and cherry picked quotes from psychoanalysis and Kali's Child reviews.. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization

• Religious school of thought
  • Concentrate on views on Tantrika, Bhakta, Vedantin. Also concentrate on arguments related to mis-representing Ramakrishna.
• Psychoanalysis and Sexuality
  • Concentrate on views of scholars like, Romain Rolland, Sil, Kripal, Spivak, Kelly Aan Raab, Alan Roland etc., without giving WP:UNDUE weightage to any one particular scholar. see Views on Ramakrishna for details. If any editor wants to undue weightage, we can consult the wikipedia rulebook, which specifically prevents WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY
• Postcolonial studies
  • Concentrate on studies by Sumit Sarkar, Partha Chaterjee, Amiya P. Sen etc., which locate Ramakrishna in a historical context.

--Nvineeth (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This section still gives WP:UNDUE weightage to a set of scholars (also WP:BIAS ), which should be addressed. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I support the view that all the views should be mentioned without bias and undue weightage. Also we need to add stuff from this sectionViews_on_Ramakrishna#Medical_viewpoints_on_Ramakrishna.27s_Samadhi. Ramashray (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you are reneging on the compromise agreement that led to that section being accepted into the article. You are going to add authors who are the favorites of the devotees and the Mission, even though they are not notable, namely Raab and Roland. You are going to add scads of non-notable authors in a completely POV manner, as your do in every Ramakrishna-related article, ruining every article. You have ruined the Kali's Child article with your extremely one-sided, obviously competely POV edits. If you do the same thing to this article, I will revert your changes. The section is currently stable and you plan to add your POV to it. Do not do that. — goethean ॐ 15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-notability??

• Goethean, first to win the support of the editors, you wrote,"But, to clarify, this article doesn't need to endorse the conclusions of Kali's Child (...) — goethean ॐ 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)" (Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_4)
• Then you indiscriminately add cherry picked quotes from Kali's Child and its reviews. Whats more? even the reviews were cherry picked.
• Other independent studies from Alan Roland, Kelly Aan Raab, Somnath Bhattacharyya, Hawley, G.C.Ray^{(IIT prof with IEEE paper on Ramakrishna)} etc., were avoided. To Quote you, "I oppose having this article cover content by non-notable authors. To me this includes Raab and Roland..."(Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_5), while Kali's Child and cherry picked quotes from book reviews get main coverage!

The question to be asked it, who is "reneging on the compromise agreement". Who is preventing other scholars from coming into the article, so that the deductions of Kali's child get lot of coverage? --Nvineeth (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"If you do the same thing to this article, I will revert your changes."

Nice threat, all the best. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The current paragraph on Kali's Child has couple of quotes and does not give the complete picture, feels like one guy supported it and two guys were against it! Also its better to summarise all the views. And Goethean, stop bullying. We will revert your changes. Bluptr (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Outside opinion

(Disclosure: User: Nvineeth requested that I take a look at this page. However, since I have had no prior interaction with that user or with the article, please consider this to be an independent opinion. Thank you.)

I waded through the material on this page and have some comments to make, some general and some specific. Here goes:

1. In general, the emphasis in a biography should first be on verifiable facts and only secondly on derived opinions and theories. Unless, of course, these opinions or theories are central to the notability of the individual. In the case of Ramakrishna, it would seem that the material on homoeroticism and sexuality is neither factual nor central to his notability which leads me to conclude that any such material should be included with care and not over-emphasized.
2. I read the version from this diff and the presentation of issues relating to sexuality is clearly inappropriate. For example, in the lead, the following statement is presented as fact when it is clearly an opinion: "Ramakrishna had a highly eccentric, homoerotic sexuality which was related to his mystical realization." Even though several citations are provided, it is important for us to draw a clear distinction between what is known with certainty and what is merely an opinion, even if the opinion is generally accepted. The sentence that follows, about the mission suppression of Ramakrishna's sexuality, has no place in the article because it is neither certain if this description of Ramakrishna is true nor is it biographical about Ramakrishna (if backed up by WP:RS, this belongs in an article on the Ramakrishna Mission.
3. It is much harder for me to comment on whether it is the consensus view of academics that Ramakrishna had a highly eccentric homoerotic sexuality. Clearly, there is some reasonably held view that this was the case. However, it is not clear how strongly held this view is. Reading the above material, it appears that this is expounded at length by one author (Kripal) with support from numerous other researchers (Sil, Radice, Urban, etc. etc.). However, from Nvineeth's analysis here there is evidence that these other researchers are not wholly behind this theory. Additionally, some well respected academics like Spivak apparently don't buy into this theory.
4. Given all this, that a biography article should emphasize factual biographical material, that the article's primary focus should be on whatever makes the individual notable, and that the sexuality material is neither universally accepted nor wholly supported by writers on Ramakrishna, I think it important to de-emphasize the material on sexuality. The in this version seems appropriately balanced to me (assuming that these views are widely enough held not to be considered fringe views). At best, if there is a consensus that these views on sexuality are broadly held, an added sentence in the lead may be considered. However, it seems to me that that consensus is lacking even for this.

--Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 18:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic. — goethean ॐ 21:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting response. Could you please be more specific? --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have read my above discussion in which I responded to User:redtigerxyz's series of clearly false statements, then you have read what I have to say on the subject. I used lengthy quotations from top scholars as they were published in peer-reviewed journals. User:redtigerxyz's responded that those scholars didn't really mean what they clearly wrote, because I was quoting from book reviews. I responded that only incompetant scholars would publish words that they did not mean. He responded by reverting my changes to the article. Now you chime in that Nvineeth's laughable "analysis" looks fine and dandy. It's a joke. If you patiently and competantly read the quotations from the scholars that I attempted to add to the article, it is clear that my additions to the article are well-sourced, far far far better sourced than any other sentence in this article. But edit warring by Ramakrishna Mission devotees will win the day again, it seems. — goethean ॐ 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should reread my opinion. IMO, irrespective of the validity of your sources, an overemphasis on the homoeroticism theory is out of place in this article. Presenting it as fact is definitely out of place. That said, based entirely on what I read up there (since I know little, if anything, about the subject), I think the acceptance of the homoerotic theory is less general than you make it out to be. (BTW, book reviews do not make reliable sources. They are neither peer reviewed nor vetted by the scholarly community. Please see WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source.) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, irrespective of the validity of your sources, an overemphasis on the homoeroticism theory is out of place in this article.

I wanted to add one sentence on the academic consensus about Ramakrishna's sexuality. One sentence. Every scholar I quoted (with the exception of Doniger) explicitly said that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric regardless of the extent to which they had problems with Kripal's book. My single sentence is better supported than any other sentence in the entire article, which is based on extremely poor sourcing which has been filtered by a religious organization. — goethean ॐ 00:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean you want to add it in the lead? Because, afaics, there is an entire subsection on this in the article. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 03:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, yes, yes, celibacy is universally considered eccentric (because really, what red-blooded male wouldn't stick his d*@k in any willing, available, female hole?). but making the intellectual leap from celibacy to emergent homoerotic pedophile - which is the edge you're trying to push here - would take a good bit more evidence than a third-hand freudian analysis by people who (apparently) really don't know how to correctly do a Freudian analysis, yah? yeesh...--Ludwigs2 00:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if your opinion is superior to those of the authors I've posted, maybe you have some publications on the subject that we could use. Otherwise, your comment seems out of line. There's no "edge" I'm "pushing". It is the academic consensus. The Hatcher/Neevel article I quoted is from the Encyclopedia of Religion, the standard work on the subject. — goethean ॐ 00:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Freudian analysis of prominent figures had a brief heyday in the 40'5 or 50's, but even then it was a marginal movement. Clinical psychologists bypassed it in favor of a more descriptive mode of presentation for cases, and social/political theorists moved on to behavioral analysis. I remember reading an article on the death of Freudian analysis in academia; it's off topic for this page, but I'll dig it up for you if you force me to. and even in it's heyday, Freudian analysis was intended as a tool to understand prominent figures (to explore their actions on a deeper psychological level), not as a tool for ideological character assassination. and yes, I am qualified to discuss this material at length. --Ludwigs2 03:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the literature on Ramakrishna. — goethean ॐ 03:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

and I suggest you acquaint yourself with wp:CIV. now, can we stop with the pointless sniping? I'm not interested in getting attitude from you. discuss the article, not the editors. --Ludwigs2 04:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean for your statement, "I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the literature on Ramakrishna" and the claimed neutral version you endorse, pls look into the detailed discussion in which the problems in that version were brought out and discussed. In fact I think that I have missed out even more problems, and if situation demands, I can write in greater detail on the problems that existed. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Politely requesting that you familiarize yourself with the literature on the subject at hand is uncivil now? On second thought, I don't think that it would do any good, since you have your mind made up and your agenda is set. — goethean ॐ 14:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

lol - never mind Nvineeth; it's obviously more important to Gothean to be rude than to get any work done. revert his posts where you have to, revise them where you can, otherwise ignore him. --Ludwigs2 19:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Laugh it up. I tried to add an academic perspective to this article, which is dominated by the dogma of a discredited, cult-like religious organization. The fact that you find that funny is not a problem for me, it is a problem for Wikipedia.

trust me, I don't find this even remotely amusing. I'll also point out that most of what you wanted to add is currently included in the section Ramakrishna#Psychoanalysis and Sexuality, in a much more tasteful and balanced form. so why are you still raging? --Ludwigs2 05:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I don't know. I guess I was under the mistaken impression that encyclopedia articles were supposed to be based on reliable sources which reflect the academic consensus rather than the fiat of religious cults. Unlike most Wikipedia articles, the entire biography section is sourced to 100- and 75-year old works. Why? Because devotees of the Ramakrishna Mission religious organization oppose the findings of recent scholarship. They don't like what the scholars say, so those findings have been confined to a few sentences at the end of the article and a completely non-neutral daughter article. Why would there be a section called "Views and studies" in the first place? The existence of that section assumes that what the Mission says is gospel truth,. and what the scholars say should be relegated to a special section of a few sentences toward the end. It is an absolutely idiotic idea, one which could only have been dreamed up by cult devotees. Everything about Ramakrishna is the result of a "view" and a "study". But this article takes the RK Mission's views as gospel truth, and the views of academics as somehow compromised. Without, of course, arguing for that idea or supporting it or even admitting it And then some supposedly neutral third party editors came to the article and decided that the laughable "analysis" of the devotees was right on target, and the academics are full of bullshit. Wonderful! And when I try to put a POV tag on the article, I am edit warred by more religious devotees. Perfect. Maybe you all can get funding from the Ramakrishna Mission swamis for your work on this article. — goethean ॐ 17:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Every sentence in this article should be sourced to an academic source from the last 30 years. Why, apart from the influence of a dishonest and deceptive religious organization, wouldn't it be? — goethean ॐ 16:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ten months ago, there was a version of this article which utilized recent academic literature. That version was destroyed by religiously motivated editors. Every reference to academic research was removed and replaced with sources approved by the Mission. Now we have a biography that the devotees approve of, but which a knowledgeable academic would see as closer to a fairy-tale than to reflecting the historical record. — goethean ॐ 16:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, thanks for making the Talk pages a heat feast. Read WP:CIV and this is not a discussion forum. For the version of the article you keep referring, read Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_3#Revisiting_revision_on_25_June_2008. Talking of Swamis, did you know that before joining the Ramakrishna Order in 1981, SVAMI ATMAJNANANANDA (birthname, Smart Elkman) received his Ph.D. in Oriental Studies from the University of Pennsylvania? --Nvineeth (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Every sentence in this article should be sourced to an academic source from the last 30 years", :-) fine we will bring this rule in wikipedia. I cannot find this guideline in WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be smiling too if I had gotten away with what you have. If your Swami has a PhD, then he should have no problem getting his essay published in a peer-reviewed journal, assuming it meet the journal's quality standards. As far as I know, it remains unpublished. There are good reasons why some papers are published in peer-reviewed journals and others are published in anti-academic books bankrolled by right-wing NRIs. I am glad that it is not I who is making common cause with the likes of Rajiv Malhotra. — goethean ॐ 14:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Refs

"I tried to add an academic perspective to this article"

Here is the analysis of the "academic perspectives".

• The first sentence is a weasel line, with OR, one-sided POV, cherry picked quotes.
  • 2,3,4,5,6--book reviews.
  • 7--Misleading quote, see the section Talk:Ramakrishna#Gerald_Larson.
  • 8--talks about Ramakrishna's homosexuality, which is already covered.
  • 9--book review
  • 10--cherry picked from Kali's Child preface, and guess what who wrote it? The PhD awarder.
  • 11-- From the encyclopedia, and you have acknowledged above that tertiary sources should not be used. And these views are also already included in the "Psychoanalysis and sexuality" (Madhura Bhava)

• The second sentence is also weasel line, OR, one-sided POV with cherry picked quotes.
  • 13,14-- Book review and there is another quote from Kripal which directly contradicts 14.
  • 15--talks about tantra, homoeroticism of Kali's Child's deductions which is already covered.. and there are several POVs (Sen, Atmajnanananda) against it. Talking of "secret", Colin Robinson wrote, "Kripal uses the words “secret” and “secrecy” repeatedly. Yet the texts he exposes have been readily available to anyone who can read Bengali since 1932, when the final volume of the Ramakrishna Kathamrita was published. Kripal gets his material from the thirty-first edition of the Kathamrita, published by the Kathamrita Bhaban in 1987. It’s a funny kind of secrecy."
  • 16--Kripal's views on Sarkar's work and Sumit Sarkar's works are discussed in the article here. I will be adding more on Sarkar's work in the days to come.
  • 17--Taken from Book review.
  • 18,19--again cherry picked, see Conversations with Isherwood and Kali's Child Revisited which contradict this.

Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Perfect analysis by Regent's Park. I support it. Bluptr (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. Because if a scholar is writing a book review, then he's under the influence of some sort of hallucinatory drug and doesn't actually mean what he writes. That makes sense. Let's all ignore the academic findings from the last thirty years and pretend that when the swamis disagree with the professors (which is 99.9% of the time), it is the swamis who are telling the truth and it is the professors who are lying, or on drugs, or mean the opposite of what they wrote in articles published in academic journals. Group-think is so comforting. — goethean ॐ 16:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, we all know what professors you are referring, and the professors who are dismissed as non-notable, because they contradict the findings of these "contemporary scholars"! Even SVAMI ATMAJNANANANDA (birthname, Smart Elkman) who received his Ph.D. in Oriental Studies from the University of Pennsylvania is also some non-notable swami who should be kept away because what he writes contradicts Kripal and Sil! --Nvineeth (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Combine issues

Apologies for the lengthy post, but I'll be away for a couple of weeks. With a growing consensus being reached, I wanted to have my views on record while the ongoing issues are discussed, since I've been involved in this article for quite awhile. A heartfelt thank you to the new editors who have braved this often uncivil mess to share their outside opinions. I'm hopeful that the negative tone of the discussion will become much less personal now, and that the article can move forward.

• First, I want to thank Goethean for his effort to rewrite the "Views and studies" section. The current version in the article is the right direction, with changes still needed, but an overall improvement in tone and weight. The current weightage given to the Kripal book in that section is appropriate, though there is still a problem with the cherry picking of quotes to 'prove' that his views are accepted (see below).
• The attempted addition to the lede of speculation about Ramakrishna's sexuality is clearly a violation of WP:UNDUE. It's been shown that it is a minority view at best, possibly a fringey view, but certainly not notable or relevant enough to a biography of Ramakrishna to put in the lede. I am "opposed" to it going into the lede. I am also "opposed" to it going into the bio section. Those views are just that, views of Ramakrishna by some academics (opposed by just as many), and not an accurate neutral description of Ramakrishna's life. The short mention in the current Views section is appropriate for what it is (a "view"), and for its minority weight. Regarding the lede, I "strongly support" the current version of the lede over Goethean's proposed rewrite.
• The "Cherry Picked Quotes" section above shows that the recent attempts to hypersexualize Ramakrishna in this article are unconscionable in their selective use of quotes. Further, there is a reason that Book Reviews are not a reliable source: they are often requested by the author from friendly colleagues. It's notable that the same colleagues later qualified their views significantly. Book Reviews and Testimonials are the ultimate in unreliably sourced cherry picking.
• It might be appropriate to have a "Biographical Sources" section, as Goethean has been wanting, but only if it's at the very end of the bio section or better yet at the very end of the article. And only if it's a summary, written neutrally, and without any attempt to push a certain POV.

Again, thanks to the new outside opinions, and particularly to Regent's Park for wading into this with a well-thought and well-expressed understanding of the issues. I would also like to commend some of the editors here for remaining calm during some heated debates. Priyanath ^talk 03:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply I agree there is a need for outside opinion of other editors, like Regent's Park. His anaylsis is very constructive and helpful. Also, the above approach by Priyanath is rational and constructive. I agree with his points. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Ramakrishna's sexuality

Here's a question for my opponents --- what are your views of Ramakrishna's sexuality? I assume he was celibate. You think that he actually had no sexuality? You think it wasn't very interesting? You think that his mystical realization excluded sexuality? That it transcended it? It starts to sound a little silly. And what have the swamis and monks written about it? What do they think about it? They just pretend that its irrelevant and are content with it remaining taboo, and threatening to excommunicate everyone who discusses it? That's a little weird, especially when we are studying someone who worshipped the penises of boys, who worshipped his own phallus, and who was a tantrika. I'm sorry that some devotees seem to be uncomfortable discussing sex, but its not fair to our readers to exclude the academic community from the article. — goethean ॐ 20:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, not all are uncomfortable about sex at least me, and I am extremely comfortable to talk about it. Instead of me saying something that is WP:OR, you can find your answers here, Kali's Child: Psychological And Hermeneutical Problems. And dont tell that Somnath Bhattacharyya is a non-notable scholar, because I have edits from you, in which you have added him. I have another question for you, why are you censoring and removing materials which throw light on Ramakrishna's sexuality? for example this edit removes openshaw and I also have edits from you in which you added openshaw before. Here is openshaw's answer, to your question, "The sexual orientation of this complex figure could not have been expected to emerge from the sources available in the first place. But in any case, does it really matter?"[1]

Any more circular arguments / questions? --Nvineeth (talk)

Here is another answer from Jean Varenne; Derek Coltman from the book Yoga and the Hindu Tradition. University of Chicago Press. p. 151. "we know that certain Tantric practices, condemned as shockingly immoral, are aimed solely at enabling the adept to make use of the energy required for their realization in order to destroy desire within himself root and branch" --Nvineeth (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another answer, from Elizabeth U. Harding from the book Kali: The Black Goddess of Dakshineswar. pp. 74-75. "Through the steadfast spiritual practice, the godlike aspirant rouses the Kundalini and makes her pierce the six centers of mystic consciousness.[…]It is sheer nonsense and gross perversion to truth to brand it as gross egoistic hedonism or unrestrained sensualism. Rama Prasada, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Bama Ksepa, and other Sakta saints attained God-realization" or If yo prefer Hugh Urban's answer, "Kripal lapses all too often into a very popular misconception of Tantra as something "scandalous, seedy, sexy, and dangerous" (p. 32),"^{Hugh Urban review} --Nvineeth (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Bhattacharyya's essay was not published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Surely that is not an accident. Varenne quotation is irrelevant. Openshaw, I believe, was not in a peer-reviewed journal. Your quotation from Harding is appropriate (although it doesn't really contradict my quotations, since Kripal's entire thesis was that Ramakrishna's practices were not hedonistic, but rather mystical and ontological, which would be completely obvious had you read or understood Kripal's book or its academic reviews), but the Urban one is off-topic, because it has no bearing on Ramakrishna's sexuality. Your quotations need to say that Ramakrishna's sexuality was totally normal. Don't you find it a little strange that you can't find anything like that when you claim that my views are so absurd, undue, and crazy? — goethean ॐ 12:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Bhattacharyya's works have been supported by Antonio De Nicholas, Yuette C. Rosser. If you sincerely read the first link I have posted above you will get the answers. Did you make an effort to read it properly? Your repeated stress on "peer-reviewed academic journal" is addressed by WP:BIAS : "Wikipedians, as a class, tend to over-represent intellectuals from academia or members of subcultures. ...This leads to a bias against full coverage of blue collar subjects, ... while obscure academic theories^{psychoanalysis here} and minority subcultures are well covered." If only "peer-reviewed academic journal"s are allowed then we may have to rewrite 99.99% of wikipedia articles. --Nvineeth (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I had forgotten to mention one little thing: Read Views_on_Ramakrishna#Tantra_Sadhana's second para. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

courtesy break

Gothean, I've removed the conspiracy theory additions, and revised and trimmed the homosexuality addition to remove defamations and redundancies. I'll point out that there will be further revisions as I rework that whole section. as far as I can tell from looking at the material provided, these authors take the following facts:

1. ramakrishna did some crazy things.
2. he advocated celibacy.
3. he worshipped a female deity.
4. he liked that his students had a pure love of the goddess.
5. he rejected the advances of prostitutes and tantricas.
6. he never consummated his arranged marriage.

then they put them all in a Freudian blender and came out with the conclusion that RamaKrishna was a perv. that's logic worthy of a 16 year old jock; a decent Freudian scholar would know better than to cast aspersions about character in the middle of an analysis. in the future, please don't pad your cites with repeated reviews on the same book, and don't sneak a bunch of quotes into footnotes when they don't fit properly in the body of the article. --Ludwigs2 03:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the oversight, but I just saw these comments of Ludwigs2's now. Ludwigs2 calls the consensus of the academic community (that the Ramakrishna Mission has suppressed information related to Ramakrishna's biography) a "conspiracy theory". He thinks when scholars characterize Ramakrishna's sexual activities (including worshiping the penises of his young devotees, worshiping of his own penis, his dressing up as a woman for months at a time, and his tendency to fall into a swoon whenever his more attractive young male devotees appear) as eccentric, they are using "logic worthy of a 16 year old jock". Thanks for your opinion, but I'll go with the word of around 10 well-known religious studies scholars over that of an anonymous Wikipedia editor. In a word, User:Ludwigs2 rejects the consensus of scholars, and expects the article to reflect his opinion. This is a clear violation of the NPOV and WP:OR policies. — goethean ॐ 21:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"I apologize for the oversight, but I just saw these comments of Goethean now." To address your question, let me quote Larson, "Nor has there been any shortage of articles and books that make clear Ramakrishna's syncretistic Gaudiya Vaisnava, Saiva, Sakta and Tantrika predilections. For anyone even casually acquainted with Bengali spirituality and cultural life many of the symbolic visions and fantasies of Ramakrishna, which appear bizarre and even pathological when construed only in isolation or individually, become much less so when one relates the visions and fantasies to nineteenth-century Bengal". And there is a quote from Kripal which contradicts "Ramakrishna Mission has suppressed information". --Nvineeth (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think that worship of penis or linga has anything to do with homosexuality. Bluptr (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate tone tag

the biography section needs a rewrite - it sounds more like a reminiscence than an encyclopedia article, and the structure is haphazard. I'll work on it as I have time. --Ludwigs2 03:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This was one the problems because of which the article failed the GA review I had carried. Ludwigs2 has pointed this out correctly. Also in the third opinion I see that the article is being described as neutral. Also this article has a very long history of tag abuse, esp by Goethean. I dont see any problems of neutrality, so I will be removing this tag, which exists unnecessarily. Bluptr (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed stuff and lengthy quotes that sounds like reminiscences, but still some work related to excessive details should be done. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Biography section, revision plan

ok, here's a tentative plan for revising the biography section. first, it should probably be broken up into different sections: a pure biography section containing the basic facts of his life; a section on his religious studies and inspirations (including his teachers, his experiences with other faiths, and the stories about his visions and meditative states); a section about his followers and devotees. something like the following:

• Biography
  • Birth and childhood
  • Dakshineswar Kali Temple
  • Marriage
  • Arrival of his students
  • Last days and Death
• Religious studies and inspirations
  • Bhairavi Brahmani and Tantra
  • Vaishnava Bhakti
  • Totapuri and Vedanta
  • Islam and Christianity
• Followers and devotees
  • Sarada Devi
  • Influence on Keshub Chunder Sen and Bhadralok
  • Devotees and disciples
    • probably need a special emphasis on Vivekananda, here

we might also want to move the section on his teachings before the section on his devotees (which would allow us to easily talk about the differences between his teachings and theirs). comments? --Ludwigs2 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you work on the sourcing in this article, which sucks. There have been plenty of sources published in the last 30 years, but this article boycotts those sources because they do not accord with the religious views of the editors. — goethean ॐ 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Ludwigs2:Thanks a lot for your comments, we will look into it. I have started by removing some unencyclopedic stuff like reminiscences. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

To Goethean:Why is it 30 years sometimes and 40 years sometimes and even 25-years sometimes? --Nvineeth (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also I think few sections give undue weightage and dwell in too much details, for ex, this para,

Ramakrishna was a popular figure in his village. He is said to have had a natural gift for the fine arts like drawing and clay modeling. However, he disliked attending school, and rejected his schooling saying that he was not interested in mere "bread winning education". Though Ramakrishna shunned the traditional school system, he is said to have showed good aptitude in learning.[15][16] He reportedly became well versed in the songs, tales and dramas which were based on the religious scriptures.[17] He also became acquainted with the Puranas, the Ramayana, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavata Purana, hearing them from wandering monks and the Kathaks—a class of men in ancient India who preached and sang the Purāṇas.[18] He learned to read and write in Bengali[19] and was able to follow Sanskrit even though he could not speak the language.[20]

is very big and feels very repetitive. The details can be lessened. There are few more like this, which should be worked upon. Thanks. Bluptr (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I am working on these things, and as a first step, removing excessive details. Thank you everybody. Nvineeth (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice you are removing all references to Sil. The Swamis will certainly be happy with your work, and any academics who may wish to consult this article will find it useless, except for its entertainment value. — goethean ॐ 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Read my edit summaries, OK? The bio is being organized and quotes, too many details, unclear stuff pointed out by other editors are being address.. so be patient. Ok? --Nvineeth (talk) 08:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For contrast, here is an outline of the article from the Encyclopdia of Religion. Each bullet corresponds to one paragraph in the article. It's pretty easy to spot which issues the authors of the present article want to avoid.

• Intro

[Life]

• Birth, childhood
• Temple
• Kali worship; suicide attempt
• Marriage
• Tantra
• Vedanta
• Allah, Christ
• Met w/Calcutta elite
• Vivekananda, Mission

[Teachings]

• Kathamrita
• SRK’s critique of advaita
• Harmony of religions
• SRK’s experientialism

[Interpretations]

• The problem of the Mission's hagiography; 3 major debates
• Vedanta or tantra?
• Social ethic of Mission in tension with SRK’s treachings?
• Sex + scandal
• Kripal

— goethean ॐ 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That does look like an outline, but this is Wikipedia - and these articles are built by consensus. Your attempts at ownership of this article defy the consensus reached on this talk page - again, and again, and again. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts at ownership of this article --- is that a joke? Every time I touch the article, I am immediately reverted and the article is brought back into line with the religious dogma of the Ramakrishna Mission. — goethean ॐ 00:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot you are battling the Ramakrishna Mission. Well, good luck in your personal vendetta. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm unsuccessfully trying to add an academic perspective to this article. And you are successfully preventing me from doing that. — goethean ॐ 00:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you are trying to add an academic perspective to this article And which academic perspective is that - your perspective, assisted by some cherry picked quotes as shown above. Thanks, and good luck fighting the Ramakrishna Mission's (or in your words, "a discredited religious organization") attempts to halt your unbiased editing. All one has to do is look at your comments on this talk page to see your bias, it is plain and clear - and UNDUE. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, the Ramakrishna article in the the standard reference work on religion devotes several paragraphs to controversies of the Mission and Ramakrishna. We do not.

Actually, we did, but editors removed the material. — goethean ॐ 00:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, good luck in fighting that "discredited religious organization." I am sure you are fighting the good fight, and will correcttly combat this conspiracy against you by the Ramakrishna Mission. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a conspiracy, and I never said it was. It's about five misguided wiki-editors who think that the Ramakrishna Mission is more reliable than academic sources. The suppression of biographical documents by the Mission is a seperate issue, and is well-attested with reliable sources. But you know all this, you're just posturing. — goethean ॐ 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay, good luck in your fight with the Ramakrishna Mission and those "5 misguided wiki-editors." Ism schism (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well Goethean, thanks for adding the tags, probably the editors of this article have lost count of how many times the tag has been added! Regarding you "academic consensus" against "discredited religious organization", any editor can see how you push a book + unreliable book reviews... while banishing other scholars ( Talk:Ramakrishna#Non-notability.3F.3F ) and Cherry picking misguiding quotes, read my cherry picked quotes here Talk:Ramakrishna#Problems_with_lede and Talk:Ramakrishna#Cherry_Picked_Quotes. If you want I can add more cherry picked quotes. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If we look at other encyclopedias--

• Holy People of the World: A Cross-cultural Encyclopedia, describes about Kripal only in the biblio.
• Philosophers and Religious Leaders: An Encyclopedia of People Who Changed the World (1999) does not mention about Kali's Child.
• America's Alternative Religions By Timothy Miller mentions about Kali's Child only in the biblio.
• Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (2003) does not saying anything about Kali's Child. Note, this encyclopedia also deals with psychology and does not mention a thing.
• Encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy 2001 By Oliver Leaman does not mention about Kali's Child.
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (1998) does not say thing about Kali's Child!

The above encyclopedias are more balanced, and they do not provide undue weightage like what you have mentioned above. So just by one encyclopedia article, nothing can be proved. Its also important to note who the author of the encyclopedia article you site is... Brain Hatcher, a supporter of Kripal. But other encyclopedias listed above are more balanced and neutral in their approach. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, the "Sex + scandal" you have mentioned above is nice WP:OR, even Hatcher presents this in a dignified way. What Hatcher writes as "scandalous particulars of Ramakrishna’s own psychosexual development, be it his fondness for wearing women’s clothing"(Vol 11. p.7613) and "Sexuality"(Vol 11. p.7613) is already discussed. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

From what Neevel and Hatcher actually say, it is clear that they would prefer an academically based article rather than the present censored version (Emphasis mine).

Finally, if Ramakrishna’s worldview was fundamentally Tantric, the question remains as to why this aspect of his thought has been played down in the official literature.

This suggests one final area of debate, which centers on the question of how best to account for the particulars of Ramakrishna’s experience of Tantra. Postcolonial scholarship has made us aware of the stigma attached to Tantra in late Victorian discourse about India. The very mention of Tantra in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries would have conjured up visions of antinomian religious practices— most threateningly, ritualized sexual intercourse. Seen in this light, it is understandable that Vivekananda and the early disciples would have been sensitive about foregrounding the importance of Tantra for Ramakrishna. But beyond this, there were the sometimes scandalous particulars of Ramakrishna’s own psychosexual development, be it his fondness for wearing women’s clothing, his aversion to heterosexual relations, or the possible homoerotic dimensions of his spiritual life. Bourgeois prudery regarding Tantra and sexuality, on the part of both devotees and Western interpreters, has meant that these aspects of Ramakrishna’s life were often denied or interpreted away.

Open discussion of such matters remained scandalous for most of the twentieth century, as is evident from the uproar surrounding the publication of Jeffrey J. Kripal’s book Kalı’s Child in 1995. Although scholars like Zimmer and Neevel had previously brought the Tantric side of Ramakrishna to light, Kripal attempted to put the ritual and theology of Tantra in conversation with Ramakrishna’s psychosexual development. Kripal’s search for a cross-cultural hermeneutic of Ramakrishna’s experience that could do justice to the mystical and the erotic earned the indignation of devotees and of Hindus more generally, some of whom sought to have the book banned in India. To understand why, one need not only appreciate the fears of devotees who mistook Kripal’s book for an attack on Ramakrishna, but also the sensibilities of postcolonial Hindus for whom such scholarship appeared to be yet another attempt to assert Western superiority. In the furor over the book two things were overlooked. First, far from trying to stigmatize Ramakrishna’s sexuality, Kripal sought to recognize it as one dimension of a profoundly spiritual life; second, Kripal explicitly rejected any simplistic psychologism that reduced Ramakrishna’s spirituality to a matter of pathology. Unflattering psycho-biographies of Ramakrishna exist, but they seem to have attracted far less attention than Kalı’s Child, which suggests the degree to which the task of interpreting Ramakrishna must include reflection upon the place of Hinduism, Tantra, and the erotic in modern discourse about India.

The article, unsurprisingly, perfectly supports the inclusion of my proposed text. Hatcher, like all scholars, defends Kripal and indicts the Mission. We can see the "bourgeois prudery regarding Tantra and sexuality, on the part of both devotees and Western interpreters" right here on this talk page with Nvineeth's constant references to WP:Profanity, "dignity", and "decorum". — goethean ॐ 13:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also note that Hatcher and Neevel defend Kali's Child from the criticism, which they don't even dignify with the term, choosing instead to call it "the indignation of devotees" and "furor". They instead describe the book's thesis. Wikipedia, on the other hand, only sees the criticism from non-notable scholars Raab, Roland, Bhattacharya, and various swamis. The article on Kali's Child, written by User:Nvineeth, concentrates only on the criticism by non-notable scholars and ignores the fact that the book was well-received by academia. The difference could not be more stark. — goethean ॐ 13:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply

• "Also note that Hatcher and Neevel defend Kali's Child from the criticism" -- At least 5 other mainstream encyclopedia dont give WP:UNDUE weightage to Kali's Child.
• Finally, if Ramakrishna’s worldview was fundamentally Tantric, the question remains as to why this aspect of his thought has been played down in the official literature. -- The "religious school of thought" already discuss this, and more over other scholars say ( Spivak, Lex Hixon, Sen, ... may be even more) that he was exclusively tantrika. And these scholars have based on "official literature".
• "academically based article rather than the present censored version" --- what a scholar writes in a encyclopedia and the same stuff is not given WP:UNDUE weightage in at least 6 other encyclopedia does not count as "academic consensus".

Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a excerpt from an academic scholar which address downplaying of tantra,"Bhadralok biographers or devotes of Ramakrishna were not always shamefaced about the saint's association with Tantra as an author like Kipal tends to suggest." [Sen (2001), p.126]. Also most of what has been pasted above is WP:UNDUE here, this article is about Ramakrishna and not about how bhadralok felt. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

break

I'm going to begin (if I have the time) trimming material from the biography section (mostly moving anecdotes about RK's spiritual life into a different section, so the Bio is more matter-of-fact). just an FYI. --Ludwigs2 06:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes the bio should be a collection of facts. I have couple more things to point out,

• • In the section, "Vaishnava Bhakti", few things are repeated. For ex: the first para gives the overviews of "Bhavas", but the second and the rest of the paras still repeate the same. Ex: "dāsya bhāva—the attitude of a servant towards his master." in second para is already mentioned in the first para. This section needs some trimming.
  • The para "In 1864, Ramakrishna was initiated into sanyassa by a vedantic ascetic, a wandering monk named Totapuri. Totapuri looked at the world as illusory and the worship of Gods and Goddesses as "fantasies of the deluded mind" and was a follower of advaita school of thought.[56]" is confusing.. The first line says he was "vedantic ascetic" and the last line says "follower of advaita school of thought". Probably these two can be merged??
  • "His condition worsened gradually and he left his mortal body in the early morning hours of August 16, 1886 ", replace "his mortal body" by "expired" pls. Avoid unnecessary phrases.
  • the line "Jeffrey Kripal's controversial[127] Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (1995) argued that Ramakrishna rejected Advaita Vedanta in favor of Shakti Tantra" is best suited in the section "Religious school of thought".
  • Still see some book reviews being used in the section "Psychoanalysis and Sexuality", pls avoid them, especially after all the lengthy discussions on cherry picked quotes and outside opinion we have had!

--Bluptr (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on these... (when I get time!) --Nvineeth (talk) 09:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

4th rv on POV tag

FYI, please see User:Goethean's 4th revert edit;

• 1st [2]
• 2nd [3]
• 3rd [4]
• 4th [5]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If people are interested in the page history, they can consult...the page history. — goethean ॐ

I think people know how to check the history. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Use of the page history is not for 'people', information to people and editors is provided by markup tags. The disputed tag should not be removed until the dispute is closed. Otherwise the innocent reader or a new editor will assume there are not issues or disputes of the article. Wikidās ॐ

Lead

The current lead has too much emphasis on Vivekanand, "the Ramakrishna Mission by his chief disciple Swami Vivekananda" sounds OK, but "He organized a group of followers, led by his chief disciple Swami Vivekananda" is an WP:UNDUE, the information does not tell us more about Ramakrishna rather stresses the importance of Vivekananad. "The Ramakrishna movement was brought to the West by Swami Vivekananda, who attracted attention at the first Parliament of the World's Religions at Chicago in 1893.[12] He established the Vedanta Society in America and in India he founded the Ramakrishna Mission." The bolded text is UNDUE IMO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The current lead has not much emphasis on Vivekanand

It looks like you mis-spoke. — goethean ॐ 13:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

tags by Goethean

Editors, we have beaten around the bush for a long time now and we can sit back and summarise few things, especially pertaining to the tagging.

According to Goethean,

• Ramakrishna Mission is a "discredited, cult-like religious organization"
• ...And when he tries to put a POV tag on the article, he is "edit warred by more religious devotees. Perfect. Maybe you all can get funding from the Ramakrishna Mission swamis for your work on this article."
• The scholars and psychoanalyists who say that Ramakrishna's mysticism are not pathological are "non-notable". ( see Talk:Ramakrishna#Non-notability.3F.3F )
• "Nvineeth's [that's me!] modus operandi is to spam the article with gobs of material from non-notable swamis which is published in non-academic books which are bankrolled by right-wing NRIs. It is shocking what you [Redtigerxyz], Nvineeth, Priyanath, and Devadaru have gotten away with."

Now coming to the article and POVs of other editors,

• There is concensus that the article is neutral and disputed tag should not be there. The editors involved are, User:Nvineeth, User:Priyanath, User:Redtigerxyz, User:Bluptr, User:Ism_schism, User:Devadaru and possibly even User:Ludwigs2 ( whose efforts and suggestions in making the biography more of a encyclopedia tone are greatly appreciated ). Even a third outside opinion from an well established editor User:RegentsPark said that the article is neutral and asked to avoid unreliable sources like book reviews.
• cherry picked quotes, especially from book reviews which are not WP:RS should be avoided. Again this was also expressed in the third opinion. And other editors have demonstrated that by cherry picking in a different way a completly different picture can be projected. (see : Talk:Ramakrishna#Cherry_Picked_Quotes and Talk:Ramakrishna#Problems_with_lede )
• Coming to the claim of "funding from the Ramakrishna Mission swamis", the editors who have formed the concensus and the editor who gave the neutral third opinion are being payed hefty amounts by "swamis"; In fact User:Priyanath has gone on a world tour by being "away for a couple of weeks" ( Of course I am Kidding! )

As per concensus, I am removing the tag. I dont think that the "factual accuracy is disputed", Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pls refrain from adding book reviews, esp cherry picked quotes, when other POVs from journals exist, for ex: "Kripal offers no evidence that Ramakrishna was in the least conflicted over his yearning for male disciples, or had any anxiety or shame when gifted teen-age boys began coming to him as a guru. It is understood within Hindu religious tradition that a spiritual person of Ramakrishna's stature would intensely seek and need committed disciples to carry on his teachings".[6] The Kali's Child para still needs a rewrite as indicated by other editors. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Update)I have even removed the quote that speaks against Kali's Child (since we dont have a quote speaking for Kali's Child). This section should be worked on in as indicated by other users. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a clear indication of a disputed article. For more information click here. I have restored the tag, unless there is a consensus among the editors, the tag should stay. Wikidās ॐ 19:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again :) , can you pls list down / tag the stuff which is disputed? --Nvineeth (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Another Q, the Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute does not say anything about consensus, its talks about accuracy. Can you pls list down the issues related to the accuracy. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour of one unconstructive editor does not qualify as a dispute. Please see Help Needed Please. I will be removing the tag until a full explanation is giving on this talk page on what exactly is disputed or POV. We have been over this again and again - if there is any new information or new critiques - this is the place to note them. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, I support Ism schism. just because the article does not meet the WP:POINT of a single editor who wants to add material from unreliable sources does not mean that the article is under dispute. As Ism Schism points out, a full explanation is required on the talk page to add the tag. Even during the GA review the article was disrupted by reckless tagging by Goethean. --Bluptr (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Among the more serious problems, apart from the eagerness of some editors to disregard Wikipedia policy and edit war over tags in order to complete their ownership of the article, include the use of unreliable material published by the Ramakrishna Mission, a religious organization which contemporary scholars consider to have consistently suppressed the tantric teachings of Ramakrishna as well as the over-use of a book by Christopher Isherwood, which he himself said in a late interview had been censored by the swamis. Also, nearly all references to scholarly materials which had been present in an earlier version of the biography have been removed, presumably because they contradict the religious views of the edit-warring editors. Instead of grappling with the contemporary debate over Ramakrishna's biography and teachings, this article pretends that there is no debate. Because Nvineeth and his allies believe that there is no legitimate academic debate over Ramakrishna's biography or teachings, Nvineeth's edits tend to paper over the debate. Nearly all of Nvineeth's good faith edits have worsened the article and should be reverted. I will work on a list of specific problems with the article, but pretty much the entire article has been seriously damaged by Nvineeth's efforts, which, while good-faith, have the effect of imposing the views of the Ramakrishna Mission religious organization on this article. — goethean ॐ 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You can bring up your personal issues again and again, but it is your POV that is inapropriate. Nvineeth, and many other editors such as Redtigerxyz, have worked together to build an article that is based on many scholars - with no obvious UNDUE agenda as Goethean has shown, and clearly details, on her User page. It is still Goethean's POV and cherry picked quotes that are the main problem. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A cherry-picked quote is a quotation which deceptively gives an incorrect impression of the author's beliefs. On the contrary, the quotations on my userpage give an accurate impression of each of the authors' theses. They are not cherry-picked quotations. — goethean ॐ 16:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Fyi - Please see, Accuracy dispute Ramakrishna. Looks like we get to go through another round of a Goethean tagging spree. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed and reply to Goethean

"include the use of unreliable material published by the Ramakrishna Mission, a religious organization which contemporary scholars consider to have consistently suppressed the tantric teachings of Ramakrishna as well as the over-use of a book by Christopher Isherwood,"

Did you check the notes section? There are about 133 refs in this version, There are about 6 refs to Isherwood and 6/133 = 0.045112781954887216. = 4.5% Regarding your usage of sources from Ramakrishna Mission, there are around 5 or 6 refs, which is also about 6/133 = 0.045112781954887216 = 4.5% And these references are well known "facts", and its very very easy to strengethen these refs with academic sources. So overuse of the book is out of question.

contemporary scholars consider to have consistently suppressed the tantric teachings of Ramakrishna

is a WP:SYNTH on Neeval, Kripal and {{lopsided}} argument. In fact I know several scholars who tell that Ramakrishna was a vedantin, bhakta etc., and the section Ramakrishna#Religious_school_of_thought clearly tells this. The above statement is a WP:SYNTH on Kripal. In fact Kripal who said that Ramakrishna Mission is "hiding a secret" later said that, "I have also, I believe, overplayed the degree to which the tradition has suppressed Datta's Jivanavrttanta. Indeed, to my wonder (and embarrassment), the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable." Even if for the sake of argument if we take that Ramakrishna mission has "supressed", that belongs to the Ramakrishna Mission article not here, as indicated by the Talk:Ramakrishna#Outside_opinion and WP:UNDUE.

Anybody who reads Conversations with Christopher Isherwood get to know the views of Isherwood clearly. And moreover its not about censoring, what Isherwood says is "I couldn't honestly claim him as a homosexual, even a sublimated one, much as I would have liked to be able to do so. I wished that I could have discussed these matters in Ramakrishna and His Disciples." "censoring" is a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. See also Kali's Child Revisited, to quote, "Oddly enough, Kripal attempts to invoke Christopher Isherwood as having a "homosexual reading of Ramakrishna" (KC xiii). It is odd because if one reads the book that Kripal cites, My Guru and His Disciple, Isherwood clearly declares exactly the opposite: "I couldn't honestly claim him [Ramakrishna] as a homosexual, even a sublimated one, much as I would have liked to be able to do so."

"Also, nearly all references to scholarly materials which had been present in an earlier version of the biography have been removed, presumably because they contradict the religious views of the edit-warring editors."

Everybody here know that the earlier article defended by you and to which you tried to revert by discarding the 1.5 months work of at least 4 editors had failed reference checks, original research, personal comments and not encyclopedic.

"Nearly all of Nvineeth's good faith edits have worsened the article and should be reverted."

What a display of good faith by Goethean! Do you have any plans like this vandalism? Sorry not possible here. All the other editors and even the admins know that your edits are WP:POINT.

"On the contrary, the quotations on my userpage give an accurate impression of each of the authors' theses. "

I dont think you read the talk pages seriously. All the editors here know that this is false. Even the outside opinion. Anybody who reads Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_6#Cherry_Picked_Quotes , Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive_6#Problems_with_lede and the Talk:Ramakrishna#Outside_opinion knows this. You quotes come from unreliable sources like Book reviews, also the "Outside opinion" section contains a review of these quotes.

Pls list down all the references / content which you see as disputed and explain in detail why it is so. Also, pls note that there is no policy related to "outdated" in WP:RS. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Book review RSN examples

There's nothing related to book reviews either, but that didn't stop you from making up a policy and enforcing it through edit warring. — goethean ॐ 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pls see outside opinion. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The reliability of book reviews have been discussed and they are not considered WP:RS. To give examples from Reliable source noticeboard :

1. Example 1 - This discussion also explains how the reviewers were used as "other historians" exactly the way "scholars" were used in this article. From the discussion, "The text of the (...) article should be toned down due to the weakness of the sources, and it should express more caution when presenting the claims from (...)"

2. Example 2 - "In academic journals reviews are almost never peer-reviewed--they are recognized to constitute individual opinion. Even in the NYT, as here, they're not the same as news articles." and exactly the same views have been put forth in Outside opinion.

3. WP:RS also tells us, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact" and again when we read the Outside opinion we have "Presenting it as fact is definitely out of place."

--Nvineeth (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for linking to those discussions. — goethean ॐ 12:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to an alternative translation of the Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna

I've already put in the article on the Gospel of Sri Ramakrisha:

• The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, translated by Swami Nikhilananda
• An earlier translation by Swami Abhedananda

The first link was already there as The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna. The other translation was an earlier one by a different person, and they seem to overlap but aren't the same. It's on Sacred-Texts.com, so the site is good. It wouldn't hurt to add the link. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sexuality

This is a great article except for the laughable material put in by dogmatic "intellectualists" quoting Kripala and others, perhaps, which seems to ruin the flow and balance of the article. The only solution in this situation is to take the excellent content, strip the penultimate silly paragraph "Sex and Spirituality," and repost it on a private website, citing Wikipedia as the source. That, in fact, is what I have done. If I can get the graphics and format to look good, I will post that URL here. So-called scholars can quote each other until they are blue in the face arguing about Ramakrishna and whether he had suppressed homosexuality, but to any person who has actually understood a small bit of the real man, this is quite an amusing (and amazing!) thesis. I think Wikipedia should publish truth, not circular arguments of the mind. Do we also need to give equal time to Bishop Ussher`s brilliant intellectual analysis to derive the age of the earth as 6000 years? (from his study of the Old Testament Bible), in the Wikipedia articles on geology, radiometric dating, cosmology, and so forth, I had better see Ussher cited, for academic balance! (LOL). my two cents, Jack B108 (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparing the contemporary academic consensus regarding Ramakrishna's sexuality to the beliefs of a young-earth creationist seems to be the very epitome of a false analogy. But you are not the first editor to express horrified outrage about basic, inescapable, verifiable facts. Strong opinions such as yours are the reason why the portion of this article which is informed by contemporary academic studies is so tiny --- essentially one paragraph of facts, amongst a very lengthy list of legends, myths, and outright falsehoods parroted by devotees about their guru. Due to the efforts of Ramakrishna devotees, this article remains an exercise in dishonesty and an insult to the Wikipedia project. — goethean ॐ 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Jesus article includes both Christian and Muslim perspectives, as well as the view that Jesus is just a mythical figure. The Muhammad and Qur'an articles includes sources that most Muslims would agree with and sources that few Muslims would agree with. The L. Ron Hubbard article includes both Scientologist and anti-Scientologist sources. We have pretty good documentation of Ramakrishna's behavior and thoughts, but there is the issue of interpretation. A desire for truth in the article would include "some believe this about Ramakrishna, others believe this." It is completely different from including YEC in the geology articles because YEC rejects most of the data that the interpretation of which forms the basis for geology. So, a better comparison of editors of this article to young earth creationists would be an editor that denies that Ramakrishna said or did certain things, or denies that those things could possibly be interpretted a certain way, all out of a religious bias. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary academic consensus is that Ramakrishna was a repressed homosexual? I sure hope not, OMG; if so academia is in trouble, the academics are lost in a fantasy world, really. There is also the serious accusation from Swami Tyagananda (Kali`s Child Revisited -or- Did Anyone Bother to Check the Documentation? (2000). http://www.gemstone-av.com/KCR3b.pdf) of misleading scholarship by the oft-cited J. Kripala, of Rice U., in his seminal work--pun intended!). But that is old stuff here on this page, I guess. There really is not a shred of evidence that Ramakrishna of Dakshineswar had any sensual leanings left at all: he was a "supersensual" in every way, beyond hetero- or homosex. Enuf said from me, probably. Jack B108 (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not just Tyagananda alone, there are other academics who do not agree—Gayatri Spivak, Peter Heehs, etc., (more in the article) who are not the so called devotees. --TheMandarin (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Heehs — he's the scholar who was eviscerated by the Aurobindo devotees for writing a non-devotee biography on Aurobindo[7]...as Kripal was eviscerated by Ramakrishna devotees for writing a non-devotee biography of Ramakrishna. Perhaps not the best example to make your point. — goethean ॐ 15:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is certainly no lack of swamis and devotees who would like to get rid of all the works of the scholars. They are not so different from Christian fundamentalists, or your Bishop Usher in this regard. But if you think that Ramakrishna's sexuality was perfectly normal, or perfectly nonexistent, I wonder what you make of his statement that he "worshiped the penises of boys"? Is that a well-known, normative Bengali religious practice? You see, scholars don't just make stuff up. And if they do, their colleagues eviscerate them for it; they don't support it or collude with it. This idea that the entire American religious studies community is involved in a conspiracy is the most grotesque, implausible lie that has been foisted on the Ramakrishna devotees. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is material I was referring, from Peter Heehs's book Indian Religions p.28. To quote Heehs, "There is no direct evidence of this [homosexual] in the Kathamrta or anywhere else, and Kripal himself admits that his interpretations are often "speculative". The sensationalism of his approach vitiates the overall value of his book". --TheMandarin (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how you cut off the Heehs quotation in mid-sentence. It is absolutely typical of your method of using sources. Pick out what superficially appears to support the interpretation of the Ramakrishna Mission, and actively suppress the rest. Here is the entire sentence:

The sensationalism of his approach vitiates the overall value of the book, which does make a number of interesting points, for instance that the official text of the Kathamrta tends to replace the "complexity and ambivalence" of the phenomenon of Ramakrishna with "monotone colors, simplicity and dogmatism" (171).[8]

Your also conveniently neglected to give your readers a link to the source document that you deceptively "quoted" so that I could verify that you quoted Heehs accurately. For your information, responsible, honest scholars and researchers do not chop off quotations in mid-sentence without informing their audience, especially when the rest of the sentence vitiates, to use Heehs term, the first part. To be quite clear, your comment is fraudulent. You have mis-represented Mr. Heeh's published words in order to lie about what he said to your readers. I may have said a lot of unfriendly words in the course of this debate, but I am very proud to say that I would never deliberately misrepresent a source. At the end of the day, I still have my integrity. And you do all of this for the sake of preserving so-called religious orthodoxy, so-called spirituality. Thank you so much for proving to me yet again that I am absolutely, undeniably correct in my claims of clear, deliberate, flagrant, repeated POV editing and commenting on the part of User:TheMandarin and his allies. If this doesn't embarrass you, nothing will. — goethean ॐ 16:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your efforts to discredit "User:TheMandarin and his allies" makes me smile. I wanted to be brief and to the point on your arguments of "eccentric sexuality" and the later part is not related to it, its related to postcolonial context. Interested users are always welcome to refer to the source and thats was why the link was provided. The "complexity and ambivalence" part has been discussed in length by Sarkar, Partha, Amiya Sen etc., and if required I can expound on this as well. On the contrary and speaking of your "integrity" and "unfriendly words", I can give examples of your failed verification, original research in previous versions, not speak of civility problems and personal attacks dating back to 2008, even before I had made major edits to the article. At this point I feel that an RFC on user conduct civility problems, personal attacks (rampant in the archives and in the current talk page) will be a good. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So you maintain that it is an acceptable practice to quote a portion of a sentence from a source, without ellipses or indication that you are quoting a fragment of a sentence, even when the fragment that you quote appears to support your POV, and the rest of the sentence appears to contradict your POV. In your eyes, that is an acceptable, honest practice? — goethean ॐ 13:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Goethean, this is a quote on talk page, not even added to the main article and the link was provided for everybody to read it since it also talks about Kakar. Speaking of "honest practice", I can give an example of a quote you have added below, which is contradicted by the same author later, but I don't believe in tit-for-tat fights and prefer constructive editing. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In other words, yes, you think that it is okay to deceptively manipulate quotations from sources in order to buttress your argument. You will never find a diff of me chopping off a quotation from a source mid-sentence without indication, because I don't do that. I don't do that because I don't need to deceive my readers. I don't do that because I am a researcher, not a religious evangelist. For me, the ends do not justify the means. — goethean ॐ 09:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, if you read the Kripal page that Heehs refers to, Heehs got it completely wrong. Kripal said that the Lilaprasanga and Vivekananda ("the renouncer texts") replace the "complexity and ambivalence" of the portrait of SRK in the Kathamrita (a householder text) with "monotone colors, simplicity and dogmatism". Heehs says that Kripal is criticizing the Kathamrta, whereas Kripal is in fact praising it. It seems that Heehs isn't all that reliable either.[9] — goethean ॐ 18:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Had missed out, your question above has indeed been discussed before ( here and here ). Anyway, I see no point in beating a dead horse and making talk pages a battleground. What Peter Heehs writes is just one instance, there are other scholars whom point out more serious errors, but I am not keen on making this place a battleground. --TheMandarin (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the article on Heehs or Kripal, it is the article on Ramakrishna. Thus we should be focusing on the serious problems with this article, namely, the suppression of the fact that most scholars of Bengali literature believe that Ramakrishna's sexuality was eccentric, and that most scholars believe that the Ramakrishna Mission has suppressed and/or continues to suppress information relating to Ramakrishna's eccentric sexuality. Here is a small sample of the evidence.

Sil argues that Ramakrishna was too mixed-up, too uneducated, too erratic, too freakish, too sexually obsessed to have any serious claim to reverence as a spiritual leader.

William Radice, Untitled review of Rāmakṛṣṇa Paramahaṁsa: A Psychological Profile by Narasingha P. Sil Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 58, No. 3, (1995), p. 590 Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies [10]

Kripal thanks Sil in his acknowledgements and agrees on p. 298 with his suggestion that Ramakrishna was sexually abused as a child and young adult...The saint's homosexual leanings and his horror of women as lovers should not be the issue: there was plenty of biographical evidence before the exposure of the guhya katha...In his revulsion at the (heterosexual) Tantric practices that the Bhairavi, another of his mysterious preceptors, tried to impart to him, Ramakrishna was 'a failed Tantrika'; but in his erotic visions, his preaching of 'a mansion of fun that left the renouncing ways of Vedanta far behind', his homosexuality was an energizing force.

William Radice, Untitled review of Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey J. Kripal Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 61, No. 1. (1998), pp. 160-161. [11]

In it, Jeffrey Kripal offers ample proof that Ramakrishna, the Bengali ecstatic who became the fountainhead of one of the most vigorous Hindu reform movements to emerge from nineteenth-century India, had a very significantly homosexual side...Yet Kripal does clearly establish the larger point: that Ramakrishna felt strong attractions for young men-"pure pots" of love, he called them-and that he associated these moods in a complex, persistent way with his mystical experience of Kali...But the book's satisfactions are many. One of the greatest is that Kripal not only reveals Ramakrishna's homoerotic secret, but turns that secret into a searching beacon.

John Stratton Hawley, Untitled review of Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey J. Kripal History of Religions, Vol. 37, No. 4. (May, 1998), pp. 401-404. [12] The University of Chicago Press

In this impressively documented and well-written study, Kripal demonstrates that homosexual desire was the major driving force of Ramakrishna's mystical life.

David L. Haberman, Untitled review of Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey J. Kripal The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 56, No. 2. (May, 1997), pp. 531-532. 3E2.0.CO%3B2-X Association for Asian Studies

Ramakrishna was married, yet he claimed to have never had sexual relations with his wife. His sexual behaviour, in fact, was so unusual that it became the source of much speculation, and many theories have been put forward to explain it, and to see how, if at all, it might be linked to his strange religious behavior...It was Tantrism which supplied the framework which enabled Ramakrishna to express his aroused sexuality and channel it into an eroticized mysticism.

Malcolm McLean, Untitled review of Kali's Child: The Mystical and Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey Kripal Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 571-572 American Oriental Society [13]

Moreover, from the time (1942) of the publication of Swami Nikhilananda's English translation and version of Mahendra Nath Gupta's Bengali Sri-ramakrsnakathnmrta entitled The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, the eccentric sexual fantasies and practices of Ramakrishna have been well-known, including transvestitism, transsexuality (longings to become a girl widow), oral and anal sexual fantasies (both heterosexual and homosexual), castration fantasies of one kind or another, and what psychoanalysis generally refers to as the "polymorphous sexuality" characteristic of the earliest stages of human development. None of this has been much of a "secret." Indeed, Sudhir Kakar in an interesting and sensitive psychoanalytic study of the erotic and the mystical in Ramakrishna, first published some years back in 1991, indicates that there would be little doubt that from a psychoanalytic point of view Ramakrishna could be diagnosed as a secondary transsexual. Narasingha P. Sil (Chapters 2 and 3) in his interesting book on Ramakrishna, entitled Ramakrsna Paramahamsa: A Psychological Profile (also first published in 1991), suggests that it is quite possible that the eccentric sexuality of Ramakrishna reflects considerable sexual abuse from the saint's early childhood. The point, in other words, is that all of this puzzling data about Ramakrishna's eccentric sexuality has been widely known for many years.

Gerald James Larson, "Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion" Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 65, No. 3. (Autumn, 1997), pp. 655-665. [14] Oxford University Press

It is certainly true that others had at least mentioned the themes of Ramakrishna's homosexuality (Isherwood 1981: 249; Masson 1974: 309-310,312; 1979: 331; 1980: 8-10,46-47; Kakar: 33; McLean: lxxii-lxxv; Sarkar 1985: 6, 70-71, 90, 103-106) and Tantra (McLean; Neevel) before me (indeed, one could speak of a consensus on the homosexual issue, at least among academics trained in historical-critical and analytic methods), but no one followed up on these themes (for reasons I will get to shortly); indeed, much, if not all, of the earlier discussion occurred in buried endnotes, passing comments, and unpublished, almost "underground:' documents.

Jeffrey J. Kripal, "Mystical Homoeroticism, Reductionism, and the Reality of Censorship: A Response to Gerald James Larson" Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 66, No. 3. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 627-635. [15] Oxford University Press

Perhaps the most revealing material appears in chapter 2, which recounts Ramakrishna's years of Tantric practice. By recovering the original text and the "secret talk" passages of the Kathamrta, Kripal sheds new light on the saint's relations with the mysterious female Tantrika, Brahmani Bhairavi, and Ramakrishna's initiation into the forbidden practices, such as sexual intercourse and the consumption of meat and wine....Finally, Kripal engages Ramakrishna's own profoundly ambivalent attitude toward Tantra, his "shame, disgust and fear" about his homoerotic impulses and the ways in which the socially unacceptable elements of his life came to be censored by his disciples.

Hugh B. Urban, Untitled review of Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey J. Kripal The Journal of Religion, Vol. 78, No. 2. (Apr., 1998), pp. 318-320. [16] The University of Chicago Press.

But beyond this, there were the sometimes scandalous particulars of Ramakrishna’s own psychosexual development, be it his fondness for wearing women’s clothing, his aversion to heterosexual relations, or the possible homoerotic dimensions of his spiritual life. | Brian Hatcher and Walter Neevel, "Ramakrishna" in Encyclopedia of Religion Gale; 2 edition (January 30, 2005)

This analysis [Kali's Child] will be controversial, particularly among the followers of Ramakrishna, who have sought over the years to deny, or at least downplay, the Tantric elements.

Malcolm McLean, Untitled review of Kali's Child: The Mystical and Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey Kripal Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 571-572 American Oriental Society [17]

This Ramakrishna Movement was responsible for the translation, and publication of the English translation, of the primary source on Ramakrishna, the Sri-Sri-Ramakrsna-Kathamrta, and this version is both incomplete and bowdlerized. And they have virtually suppressed what Kripal considers an equally important source, Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsa-dever Jivanavrttdnta, which has never been available to English readers and has never to my knowledge been used by any other scholar writing in English. This manipulation of the sources by the Ramakrishna Movement is significant because it has allowed the Mission to present a particular kind of explanation of Ramakrishna, that he was some kind of neo-Vedantist who taught that all religions are the same, and so on. It is Kripal's contention, and I am sure that he is correct, that this is wrong. And it is significant that the Jivana-vrttinta presents an altogether different picture of Ramakrishna

Malcolm McLean, Untitled review of Kali's Child: The Mystical and Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey Kripal Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 571-572 American Oriental Society [18]

While the Order recognizes the devotional path, which acknowledges the world by saying 'this, this' (iti, iti), it is nevertheless clear that accepted doctrine holds the ultimate goal of devotion to be the nondual state of awareness known as nirvikalpa-samadhi (see Saradnanda 1996, 1: 13-17). Not surprisingly, any attempt to foreground the fact of Ramakrishna's powerful Tantric devotion to the mother will be met with the denial: 'not this, not this.'...If one were to discover that what made this mystic function were the esoteric practices of Hindu Tantra and the dynamics of homoerotic desire, one had better believe one's research will be of more than historical interest to anyone remotely sympathetic to Ramakrishna and the Ramakrishna movement (which amounts to a large part of the population of Bengal and many, many more throughout India and the world). To borrow the terminology used so effectively by Kripal, one is now threatening to reveal a secret that has been kept carefully guarded for a century.

Brian Hatcher, "Kali's Problem Child: Another Look at Jeffrey Kripal's Study of Sri Ramakrishna," International Journal of Hindu Studies 3/2 (August, 1999). 165-82.

I did in fact explore, both anecdotally and historically, the limits of the tradition's willingness (if not in the way Larson proposes). One Bengali friend would only whisper to me about the censored passages, and this in his own home. Another felt uncomfortable talking about the issue in a restaurant. When I tried to locate a copy of Sumit Sarkar's powerful essay on the saint (Sarkar 1985)-everyone seemed to know about it, but no one seemed to have it-I felt as if I were asking to buy illegal drugs (not that I have ever done that). I also spoke to Indian intellectuals in Calcutta, whose responses could be summarized as follows: "You are right, but we cannot say that here. You, however, can and should say it over there." It was my willed distance and cultural otherness that gave me a perspective, a voice, and an emotional freedom that my Indian colleagues and friends either lacked or refused to claim as their own. From a thousand such interpersonal hints and cultural cues it became patently clear to me that I had stumbled upon a cultural "secret:' a topic well outside the bounds of possible public discourse.

Jeffrey J. Kripal, "Mystical Homoeroticism, Reductionism, and the Reality of Censorship: A Response to Gerald James Larson" Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 66, No. 3. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 627-635, passim.[19] Oxford University Press.

Powerfully written, often very funny, and a pleasure to read, Kripal's book penetrates the layers of pious obfuscation and reverential distortion surrounding Ramakrishna, to recover the original Bengali texts (above all the key text of the Sri Sri Ramakrsna Kathamrta), which had been mistranslated and censored by later disciples....Chapter 3 proceeds to unmask the distorted, sanitized, and Vedantic interpretations of the saint by his late disciples, showing that Ramakrishna's teachings are best understood as steeped in a basically Tantric view of reality.... Chapter 4 then retraces Ramakrishna's descent into the world of teaching and the gathering of his disciples. Here, Kripal raises the provocative political issues surrounding Ramakrishna's progressive divinization, as he was transformed into a theological construct and divine incarnation.

Hugh B. Urban, Untitled review of Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna by Jeffrey J. Kripal The Journal of Religion, Vol. 78, No. 2. (Apr., 1998), pp. 318-320. [20] The University of Chicago Press.

During October, Swami somehow got to hear about a book, not yet published, which described its author's unsuccessful search for a suitable spiritual teacher, either living or dead. Ramakrishna was among the candidates. The author had at first felt attracted by Ramakrishna's personality but he had decided aghainst him on the ground that he was (I quote) a homosexual who had to struggle hard to overcome his lust for his young disciple later to be known as Vivekananda. Swami was outraged. He met with the author, who was persuaded or intimidated into deleting this passage from the manuscript. I could understand Swami's indignation, although, as a homosexual, I couldn't share it.

Christopher Isherwood, My Guru and His Disciple 1980 Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p 247

I couldn't honestly claim him as a homosexual, even a sublimated one, much as I would have liked to be able to do so. I wished that I could have discussed these matters in Ramakrishna and His Disciples. But that was out of the question. For my book had become an official project of the Ramakrishna Order. Each chapter was sent off to India as soon as it was finished to be submitted to the approval of Swami Madhavananda, the present head of the Order. (Sankarananda had recently died.) Many of Madhavananda's comments and corrections were helpful. But, every so often, I was made aware that there were limits to his permissiveness.

Christopher Isherwood, My Guru and His Disciple 1980 Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p 249

Bourgeois prudery regarding Tantra and sexuality, on the part of both devotees and Western interpreters, has meant that these aspects of Ramakrishna's life were often denied or interpreted away. Open discussion of such matters remained scandalous for most of the twentieth century, as is evident from the uproar surrounding the publication of Jeffrey J. Kripal's book Kalı's Child in 1995....Kripal's search for a cross-cultural hermeneutic of Ramakrishna's experience that could do justice to the mystical and the erotic earned the indignation of devotees and of Hindus more generally, some of whom sought to have the book banned in India.

Brian Hatcher and Walter Neevel, "Ramakrishna" in Encyclopedia of Religion Gale; 2 edition (January 30, 2005) — goethean ॐ 13:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Other quotes

Goethean, when you write, "Here is a small sample of the evidence" that is indeed an "evidence" for WP:POINT. Anyway, I thought that you are aware that there are plenty of other "evidence" as well. ( Taken from archives )

Peter Heehs

• Indian Religions p.28. To quote Heehs, "There is no direct evidence of this [homosexual] in the Kathamrta or anywhere else, and Kripal himself admits that his interpretations are often "speculative". The sensationalism of his approach vitiates the overall value of his book".

Gerald Larson

• "When I indicated in my review essay that many aspects of the problem of the relation between Ramakrishna's mystical experiences and his severe emotional disorders were "old news," to use Kripal's idiom, I was not referring to the homoerotic material. I was referring to the general discussion of the relation between mystical experience and psychopathology that has been discussed and analyzed at least since the time of Romain Rolland's work on Ramakrishna over fifty years ago."^{Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion Revisited: A Rejoinder}, so now read this cherry picked quote, "Moreover, from the time (1942) of the publication of Swami Nikhilananda's English translation and version of Mahendra Nath Gupta's Ben- gali SrT srTraImakrsnakathamrta entitled The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, the eccentric sexual fantasies and practices of Ramakrishna have been well-known, including transvestitism, transsexuality (longings to become a girl widow), oral and anal sexual fantasies (both heterosexual and homosexual), castration fantasies of one kind or another, and what psychoanalysis generally refers to as the "polymorphous sexuality"" -- its clear that Larson was referring to general discussion on psychoanalysis. See also Views_on_Ramakrishna#Gayatri_Chakravorty_Spivak.

• ...Nor has there been any shortage of articles and books that make clear Ramakrishna's syncretistic Gaudiya, Vaisnava,Saiva,Sakta and Tantrika predilections.For anyone even casually acquainted with Bengali spirit uality and cultural life many of the symbolic visions and fantasies of Ramakrishna, which appear bizarre and even pathological when construed only in isolation or individually,become much less so when one relates the visions and fantasies to nineteenth-centuryBengal. Motifs of transvestitism transsexuality present,perhaps even prominent,in and are the spiritual fantasies of the raganuga bhakti sadhanaof Bengal Vaisnava tradition, wherein devotees long to become feminine in order to unite in

love with Lord Krsna (Haberman).One thinks also of the Baul traditions in this regard. ...Gerald James Larson

• When I suggested in my review essay that Kripal's book would have been much more balanced and would have avoided reductionism had he allowed his manuscript to be "vetted," that is to say, critically assessed by some represenatatives from the Ramakrishna community as well as some professionals within the psychoanalytic community, I did not mean any sort of "public" debate or confrontation. I meant simply that he might have selected one or two Swamis within the Ramakrishna order and one or two practicing psychoanalysts for some critical feedback prior to the publication of the manuscript.Such persons, I am persuaded, would have alerted him to the serious problems of lack of balance and reductionism that are readily apparent in his "Conclusion: Analyzing the Secret.^{Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion Revisited: A Rejoinder}

• Kripal claims that I have lifted a few lines out of context in a twelve-page explanation that shows that his concluding analysis is not a "reductionistic reading." Here I beg to differ, and I invite any reader to read the book's conclusion in order to determine whether the final analysis is reductionist or not. In my view, the concluding analysis is doubly reductionist^{Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion Revisited: A Rejoinder}

• but to then conclude that one has found a "homoerotic saint," that the "homoerotic energies... not only shaped the symbolism of Ramakrishna's mysticism; they were his mysticism" (Kripal's italics), and then to go on, beginning with the unambigu- ous statement, "Let me be very clear ..", and to comment that "without the conflicted energies of the saint's homosexual desires ...." ". .. there would have been no 'Ramakrishna,"' is not only doubly reductionist.^{Polymorphic Sexuality, Homoeroticism, and the Study of Religion Revisited: A Rejoinder}

• Now, however, when the informed reader would like to see how what has gone before is to be integrated with everything else that one knows about Sri Ramakrishna, especially the other dimensions of his sexuality or sexual fantasies (the transvestitism, transsexuality, and so forth), but more than that, how the sexual complexity of the man relates to the mystical and/or spiritual complexity of the man, the book takes a disappointing turn.[21]

• At this point, alas, as indicated above, the book falls into what can only be characterized as a monocausal reductionism.[22]

• "Ramakrishna's homosexual tendencies ... deeply influenced, indeed determined the manner in which he created his own self-defined 'states' out of the symbols of his inherited religious tradition," is thoroughly implausible and does not follow from the evidence presented in the book. None of the evidence cited in the book supports a cause-effect relation between the erotic and the mystical (or the religious), much less an identity![23]

• By ignoring this larger framework of evidence Kripal ends up with a monocausal reductionism that is nearly a classic example of what White- head (409) called "the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness," that is, focusing on only one abstract dimension of an issue and thinking that one has then given a concrete explanation.[24]

• Nor has there been any shortage of articles and books that make clear Ramakrishna's syncretistic Gaudfya Vaisnava, Saiva, Sakta and Tantrika predilections. For anyone even casually acquainted with Bengali spirit- uality and cultural life many of the symbolic visions and fantasies of Ramakrishna, which appear bizarre and even pathological when construed only in isolation or individually, become much less so when one relates the visions and fantasies to nineteenth-century Bengal[25]

• My impression is that Kripal did not let his final draft be read outside of the context of his teachers at the University of Chicago, the readers brought into the review process by the University of Chicago Press, and the various close friends and colleagues in the academy (many or most of whom are mentioned in the Preface)[26] (this is why the book reviews are unreliable)

• I am also inclined to think that the book would have achieved greater balance and would have avoided reductionism had it been vetted by professionals within the psychoanalytic community. Even Freud, with all of his reductionist tendencies, would have been highly suspicious and critical of much of M's "secret" material.[27]

Hugh Urban

• Kripal's work also bears some rather troubling problems. Perhaps the most pervasive of these is Kripal's tendency toward sensationalism and at times an almost journalistic delight in playing on the "sexy," "seedy," "scandalous," and shocking nature of his material (e.g., pp. 27 ff.). Indeed, with section headings such as "Cleaving the Bitch in Two," "The Tantric Latrine," "Ecstatic Diarrhea," and the "Pansomatic Orgasm," it is not surprising that many Indian readers should have taken offense; nor is it difficult to understand why some Indian critics should regard Kripal's work as yet another example of neocolonialism and the West's exploitation of the "exotic Ori- ent" in the form of "slickly produced paperbacks."^{Hugh Urban review}

• ...A second problem arises from Kripal's understanding of "Tantra" and his identification of Ramakrishna as a "Tantrika."^{Hugh Urban review}

• Kripal lapses all too often into a very popular misconception of Tantra as something "scandalous, seedy, sexy, and dangerous" (p. 32),^{Hugh Urban review}

• However, perhaps the most problematic aspect of Kripal's work is its lack of attention to social and historical context. ... Moreover, Kripal fails to place Ramakrishna and his disciples within the political context of late- nineteenth-century Bengal.^{Hugh Urban review}

William Radice

• The begetter of the storm was Sil himself, in a lurid review for the Calcutta Statesman (31.1-1.2.97) in which he carefully concealed the fact that his own book had been an out-and-out attempt to debunk the saint.^{William Radice Review}

• The occurrences and distribution of the secret talk are set out in an Appendix, and it is striking-after reading such a lengthy analysis of them in the book itself-how few occurrences there are: only 18, if one adopts Kripal's strict criterion that only those passages actually designated by Ramakrishna or M. as guhya should be counted as such. Has Kripal made a mountain out of molehill? Not if one accepts his view that these passages take one to the core of Ramakrishna's mysticism, and are therefore a lens through which one can validly read the whole Kathdmrta-especially if one takes into account certain passages that are not technically ' secret' but which touch on similar themes.^{William Radice Review}

• Kripal also has five main chapters, which move forward in terms of biography, but which also playfully and timelessly circle round a central image: that of the sword- wielding, tongue-protruding Kali on top of the prostrate Siva. His book itself is a majar kuti ('mansion of fun') in which the reader often finds himself back in a previously visited room. Occasionally one stops to ask if one has not been hoodwinked by the charm of his arguments. (...) But if this is indeed a game, not a serious argument, it is no more playful than Ramakrishna's own earthy banter.^{William Radice Review}

• The Fathers of the Christian Church had a similar problem. And while granting the importance of the 'secret talk' passages, and concurring with Wendy Doniger's praise for Kripal's thorough know- ledge of the whole Kathdmrta, may we also hope that he will in future give equal attention to the vastly greater proportion of it that was not secret? The erotic-Tantric lens is not the only one through which the Kathamrta can be read.^{William Radice Review}

• What makes one ultimately distrustful of his book, entertaining though it is, is his willingness to manipulate his sources with a merry abandon worthy of Ramakrishna him- self.^{Radice Review of Sil}

• Sil knows perfectly well that Vivekananda often made provocative, throw-away remarks that were at odds with the main lines of his thought. It is just as possible to quote passages showing his undying devotion to his master. If Sil can misuse Vivekananda's writings to support his hypothesis, can we trust him to use the Kathamrta fairly?^{Radice Review of Sil}

• Another weakness of the book is that his ridicule of Ramakrishna's ' ecstasies ' his view that his frequent states of samadhi were patholo- gical rather than spiritual is not supported by any clear view of what would be a genuine state of mystical ecstasy. He quotes definitions by Eliade, as well as Indian authorities, but the drift of his argument is towards dismissal of any kind of mysticism as self-hypnosis or insanity.^{Radice Review of Sil}

• Narasingha P. Sil has debunked the saint so thoroughly and glee- fully that it is hard to see how he will recover, once Sil's book becomes widely known.^{Radice on Sil}

Jeffery Kripal

• I read with a mixture of embarrassment, sadness, and hope Swami Tyagananda’s Kali’s Child Revisited. I will pretend no full response here. That can only come with a third edition of the book, for which there are no immediate plans. Until such an opportunity arises, however, I can say that I am eager to resolve these issues in a friendly and open-hearted spirit that can be as faithful as possible both to academic standards of free inquiry and intellectual honesty and to the felt needs of significant segments of the Hindu community, whose religious sensibilities I am all too painfully aware I have offended.

• "I have also, I believe, overplayed the degree to which the tradition has suppressed Datta's Jivanavrttanta. Indeed, to my wonder (and embarrassment), the Ramakrishna Order reprinted Datta's text the very same summer Kali's Child appeared, rendering my original claims of a conscious concealment untenable."

Others

• Dr. Openshaw writes, "At any rate, Sil's understandable attempts to distance himself from Kripal's portrayal of Ramakrishna as a homosexual are vitiated by his own emphasis on the saint's "homoerotic" tendencies, albeit related by him to repressed heterosexuality, which in turn is attributed, on no evidence whatever, to sexual seduction or abuse in childhood....This inferred trauma is used to account for Ramakrishna's alleged obsession with sexuality. However, this and other traits are more plausibly viewed from a shared cultural repertoire, that of rural Bengali gurus, a world with which Sil clearly has little familiarity."

• Jack Hawley "...neither the gopis' torment nor Ramakrishna's must be allowed to devolve to a bodily level that could be indiscriminately shared—either between religious communities, or between the erstwhile colonizers and their erstwhile colonial victims, or between communities of people who respond to different sexual orientations. Eros is too dangerous."[28]

• "Might the tome be actually autobiographical, while the publishers and untutored readers have taken it to be simply about Sri Ramakrishna's life? The question suggests that there may be an intriguing novel genre (call it fiction) at work here, where an author seeks to work through his own pains and personal misgivings - about his own uncertain relations to the church, to the other sex, to the Virgin Mary, perhaps also to his mother. And this auto-analysis is enacted through the medium of the construction of the hagiography of a well-respected, though possibly equally troubled saint (sant) in another tradition, but whose own pursuits may well stand sanctioned within the mystical chambers of that more sophisticated and exotic or exoticized culture. Thus, the story (elaborated in Kripal's lecture presentations) appropriately begins in a Benedictine monastery in a small-time Christian town in the U.S.; in the account, the writer confesses to being haunted by religio-mystico sexuality which was so much, as it were, in the holy air, compounded by the attitude and conduct of the priests towards the altar boys. Redeemingly, the assuring images of Teresa ofAvila, Eckhart, are briefly insinuated."Renuka Sharma's review of Kali's Child

• "Actually, Ramakrishna was completely simple and guileless. He told people whatever came into his mind, like a child. If he had ever been troubled by homosexual desires, if that had ever been a problem he'd have told everybody about them. He said in the most completely calm, uninhibited way of Naren (...), "when I'm with him, I feel as though he were my husband and I was his wife, " and then again he said, " I see him entirely as a woman." ... His thoughts transcended physical love-making. He saw even the mating of two dogs on the street as an expression of the eternal male-femal principle in the universe. I think that is always a sign of great spiritual enlightenment...Another thing, related to this, which the Hindus feel, and indeed you find this in the Christian tradition too, is that God can be worshipped in all sorts of different ways; you can look at him as though you were his mother or father, you can look at him as a friend and as a lover--the whole Krishna thing came into that, you see. And you can also look at him as your father or your mother or your master." Conversations with Christopher Isherwood

Gayatri Spivak

• "Jeffrey J Kripal has read Ramakrishna’s life as a bhakta, as tantric practice. ... Unfortunately, the book is so full of cultural and linguistic mis-translations that the general premise cannot be taken seriously’" Other Asias (2006)

BTW, There are even more quotes like these... --TheMandarin (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. That is because the academic debate over Ramakrishna's sexuality is alive and varied. And that is why the debate should be reflected in the article. Not in a ghettoized "Views and Studies" section at the end of the article, but in the main body of the article. Scholars are debating key elements of Ramakrishna's biography, such as his eccentric sexuality. But the Wikipedia biography of Ramakrishna is dominated by worshipful hagiography and one hundred year old sources which reflect the religious POV of the Ramakrishna Mission, a religious organization which scholars agree has suppressed, and continues to suppress key elements of Ramakrishna's biography for religious reasons. — goethean ॐ 16:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I dont think Peter Heehs, Dr.Jean Openshaw, Jack Hawley, Gerald Larson are from the "religious organization which scholars agree has suppressed". --TheMandarin (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an article on Ramakrishna, not on so called "academic debate over Ramakrishna's sexuality". You know perfectly well that Kripal stopped responding in 2001-2002 and any serious academic would tell that merely referring to book does not constitute a "academic debate". If there is any debate, its on Kali's Child, its methodology, mistranslations, its book reviews, for which we have a separate article and most of which is undue here. --TheMandarin (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And you know equally well that the academic literature on the debate continues to be produced. There is plenty of debate on Ramakrishna's highly eccentric sexuality. Stop removing well-sourced, highly notable content from the article. — goethean ॐ 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)