Talk:Nirvikalpa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] External Links Issues

In my extensive rewrite of the Nirvikalpa article, an effort was made to avoid suggesting any particular school, discipline or guru presented greater truth about Nirvikalpa Samadhi than any other. In this respect- it would seem that outside links that promoted proprietary approaches to the topic are inappropriate as there are thousands of sources promoting disparate views. In my opinion the only links that are appropriate in the present list under Outside Links are The Wanderling and The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta - which take a scholarly approach to the subject. I've added a spam alert to the External Links section and will wait for input from other editors on the overall article to further address the links issue. Mayagaia 19:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Reply

I have removed the spam alert as I think it is not the correct aproach to this. I myself know nothing about yoga but if indeed the links provided in the article are not serious, but instead some kind of publicity, then removing them and either posting a "we need links" message in the talk page or getting some is probably the best way to go about it.

Cordial Greetings--Tsboncompte 04:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK- sounds reasonable to me - thanks for the input Mayagaia 18:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need for WP:RS

I have removed some of the material that is not supported by WP:RS and have placed an "Unreliable" tag on this poorly-sourced article. Use of web sites as sources is problematic in many cases, and those sites must still comply with the requirements of WP:RS and WP:EL. Personal web sites and sites that cite no reliable sources cannot be used to source Wikipedia articles. Apparently this term is used in Western occultism or New Age thinking in ways that do not correspond with its use as a technical term in Hinduism. "Nirvikalpa" is a Sanskrit adjective meaning "non-discursive" when applied to the subject of thought (for this definition see: Arya, Usharbudh (1986), Yoga-Sūtras of Patañjali (Volume 1 ed.), Honesdale, Pennsylvania: The Himilayan International Institute, ISBN 0-89389-092-8 , p. 111. Obviously a great deal of additional interpretation about this type of mentation has been done by various people. However the technical term could be pointed out and sourced.

As a technical term in Buddhist scripture, according to Franklin Edgerton's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary the expression nirvikalpayati means "makes free from uncertainty (or false discrimination) = distinguishes, considers carefully and adds a basic note that the term means "free from vikalpa" (which is a common Sanskrit word meaning a type of metal error). Vikalpa is a type of mental error defined in YS 1.9, and since it is a basic term in Raja Yoga there are numerous commentaries on what it means. Buddhipriya 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request Clarification for rejecting content and references

In regards to this section deleted: Perpetual Enigma

The two reference in question are as follows:

One would expect that Dr. John Glenn Friesen would qualify as an authoratative source and that the page reference to his documentation of views held by Adi Shankara and Sri Ramana is pertinent to a perspective on Nirvikalpa Samadhi. The references to Sri Aurobindo and The Mother are also pertinent to addressing a fundamental question regarding the role of Nirvikalpa Samadhi to enlightenment and are reliably sourced to an archive of commentaries by The Mother.

To characterize this content as a "religious lecture sourced by personal web sites or other non-authoritative sources" seems unwarranted. In any event the reason for rejecting the content and sourcing of the entire paragraph under the heading Perpetual Enigma should be better clarified than the edit summary provided. I'd appreciate a more specific justification.

Cheers Mayagaia 16:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Friesen, for general policy on notability of academics, see: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). In a nutshell, a self-published thesis by a doctoral candidate is not a WP:RS. To be notable as an acaademic in this field requires some external validation. There is no validation that the word is competent or that he is notable.
Regarding the web site miraura.org, which promotes a particular religious organization, two types of policy issue apply. First is WP:RS, if the work is being sited to prove a fact. To qualify as a WP:RS, web sites themselves must comply with sourcing rules -- they must cite reliable sources in verifiable ways. This one does not. Religious web sites are notoriously POV, and anything said by Swami X may be refuted by Swami Y. That is why secondary sources, such as academic reviews of the field, are preferable to these POV religious groups. Second, under WP:EL, which covers links to sites not used as references, all links should be kept to a minimum (see also: WP:SPAM), and must not give undue weight to any point of view. This religious group is being advertised via this link, which is inappropriate.
I hope this answers the questions on why both of these links are inappropriate. Buddhipriya 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding on your justifications for your editing
Dr. Friesen's thesis is a rare compendium of the insight- specifically relating to Nirvikalpa Samadhi or the Advaita Experience- by Hindu sages and philosophers and Western scholars and theologians through the vehicle of Abhishiktananda- a Man of exceptional intellect and erudite learning, who dedicated his life to apprehending its mystery. The work by Dr. Friesen is a resource that has exceptional relevance to anyone looking for a rational elucidation of this arcane subject. The question of whether Dr. Friesen meets Wikipedia's minimum standards to qualify as an authoritative source should take into account the unique relevancy of his thesis (a work of unquestionably high scholarship) to Wikipedia's Nirvikalpa Samadhi article and the value it holds for the average person looking for insight to basic questions- what it is, how does one experience it, what are the aftereffects.
According to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. In Friesen's thesis, citations are provided for all the material presented on each page, amounting to hundreds of citations drawn from a ten-page bibliography of verifiable sources- both primary and secondary.
The following online references to academic articles/thesis by John Glenn Friesen further support the contention that he meets Wikipedia minimum standards for citing as an authority:
Dr. Friesen's doctorate thesis published electronically at University of South Africa Library
Articles published in Ars Disputandi -an online peer reviewed academic journal as follows:
J. Glenn Friesen: “The Mystical Dooyeweerd Once Again: Kuyper’s Use of Franz von Baader,” Ars Disputandi 3 (2003), [1].
J. Glenn Friesen: “The Mystical Dooyeweerd: The Relation of his Thought to Franz von Baader,” Ars Disputandi 3 (2003), [2]
Articles published in Philosophia Reformata a Dutch journal of philosophy, peer reviewed as follows:
J. Glenn Friesen: “"Dooyeweerd, Spann and The Philosophy of Totality,” Philosophia Reformata 70 (2005), 2-22
J. Glenn Friesen, “Dooyeweerd versus Vollenhoven: The religious dialectic within reformational philosophy,” Philosophia Reformata 70 (2005), 102-132.
His doctorate thesis included in the bibliography of abhishiktananda.org
Abhishiktananda. Hindu Advaitic Experience and Christian Beliefs Bulletin of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies vol. 11 (1998)
Herman Dooyeweerd Guide to Internet Sources for Teaching and Learning in Theology and Religion
Ramana's commentaries provide the average person with perspectives pertinent to basic aspects of Nirvikalpa Samadhi and a reference to Dr. Friesen's thesis would be an invaluable resource for their further research. I propose that the text concerning Sri Ramana's talk about samadhi that was in the section entitled The Perpetual Enigma which was entirely deleted be reverted under the current section entitled Ambiguities with Dr. Friesen's thesis cited as a qualified secondary source for the commentaries to the UNISA website as follows:
In regards specifically to the commentaries relating to The Mother and Sri Aurobindo suggesting neither had direct experience with the state of nondual consciousness- this is also an important perspective on a basic question concerning realization- is Nivikalpa Samadhi a prerequisite (as many dharmic disciplines hold) to enlightenment? The justification for deleting this text was that the source did not qualify as authoritative.
The following is an authoratative reference to The Mother commentaries:
(1978) Collected Works of the Mother, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry Centenary Edition vol.8, Questions and Answers p.275-6 (22 August 1956)
I propose that the commentaries of The Mother which appeared in the section entitled The Perpetual Enigma which was deleted entirely, be reverted along with those of Ramana's under the section Ambiguities with the above citation included in the Reference section.
It is hoped that a consensus will consider these commentaries appropriate for broadening the article beyond the technical. Cheers Mayagaia 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Of the material listed above, the citations to works published in peer-reviewed journals would clearly be suitable for use as references. Dissertations published on personal web sites are not, in my opinion, satisfactory. Material published in books published by academic publishing houses have prima facie validity, of course, but choosing from the various devotional publications requires more evaluation since there are a lot of religious groups, all of which have specific POV issues. My opinion is that the (1978) Collected Works of the Mother, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry Centenary Edition vol.8, Questions and Answers p.275-6 (22 August 1956) is probably noteworthy as it is published by a major Ashram publishing house. Because the use of the term "nirvikalpa" actually shows considerable variation in usage, as the references that I have supplied show, I think it is important not to overgeneralize any particular view about the concept. Thus if there is a particular teacher who says that "Nirvikalpa means X", it is best to have the article say something like "According to Swami X, nirvikalpa means..." as opposed to saying "Nirvikalpa means X" and citing it by a reference to Swami X. That is, we must not give WP:UNDUE weight to any particular source, particularly those from distinct religious perspectives. Links to web sites are of particular concern, as they may serve as advertisements for religious organizations. Thus the decision to use a web-based source can raise concerns related to WP:EL. This said, which of the sources you have suggested do you feel are the strongest, and what is it that you think needs to be said on the subject? Buddhipriya 05:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Figure the easiest way to present the answer to your last question is for me to simply edit the article and see if it is accepted - my formatting of the references may use some editing however. Appreciate the way in which the matter may wind up being resolved. Mayagaia 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Reverting Citation back to Joan Hazelton

The reference *Hazelton, Joan. "The Relation of States of Consciousness and Stages of Consciousness", Shambala Publications, 2005 is to comments by Joan Hazelton in an account published in the Shambala website of what are aspects of integral concepts including those of Ken Wilber. It is more accurate to attribute the commentary to JH than to KW. Mayagaia 17:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

on further reflection- since the lecture by JH is a third-person account of what are essentially the concepts of Ken Wilber and JH is indorsed by Shambala as an authority on that subject- it would be more correct (and useful) to attribute the citation to Ken Wilber so I reverted his name back. Mayagaia 15:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest "Etymology" replace title- "Usage in Compounds"

Other technical choices could be "Semantics" or "Syntax" but each of these terms are included in Etymology dictionaries.

In the book The Sanskrit Language by Thomas Burrow, p55- "The most striking syntactical development is the increasing tendency to use compound words and the increasing length and complexity of the compounds used."

Since an authority like Burrow brings the subject of compounding of Sanskrit words under the heading of syntax which can be an attribute of Etymology, I suggest the present section entitled- "Usage in compounds" be changed to "Etymology" which is a more general and familiar term. Mayagaia 16:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Dbachmann Deleting 'Ambiguities' paragraph

As is evident in this discussion page, there has already been extensive peer review of the content posted under the 'Ambiguities' section deleted by Dbachmann.

Dbachmann justified his deletion of this entire section with> "incoherent paragraph, unsourced or sourced to random online sources".

Dbachmann is requested he show evidence here exactly what is incoherent, what is unsourced or sourced to random online sources- so other editors can determine if his deletion can be supported. Mayagaia (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

cite a WP:RS and we can discuss it. Random weblinks are irrelevant. Once we do have a source for the stuff in the section, we can then address the unencyclopedic dreamy tone of the section. Before we have a source, there is no justification for the section, at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbachmann (talk • contribs) 08:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to encyclopedify some of the prose, e.g. removing valorific invocations of "vedic" antecedents, and putting a dictionary definition in the lead instead of a quote of some random author (not to mention that "non-discursive" has become a heavily loaded term after Foucault et al and is thus best avoided). We still need lots of WP:RS, though. rudra (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Dbachmann:

I would expect that our discussion would follow a logical sequence as follows:

First off we have to assume Dbachmann is oblivious to the extensive review of the content and WP:RS of the Ambiguities section in the Nirvikalpa discussion page.

Dbachmann deletes the entire Ambiguity section- noting in the edit summary (let's cite proper sources for this, shall we? (and fix the cheesy language) and (incoherent, unsourced or random online unqualified sources)

Mayagaia becomes aware of D's edits and reverts the deletion and in D's talk page invites D to justify his deletion in the Nirvikalpa discussion page where MG calls attention to the extensive editor's review that already exists over the citations and content of the Ambiguity section.

At this point there is a serious break in the sequence for logical discussion.

Dbachmann rewrites the Ambiguity section, deletes the Aurobindo and the Mother ref along with every citations and sprinkles {{Fact}} tags throughout. Then in the discussion page D responds to the MG post, saying: Cite a WP:RS and we can discuss it. Random weblinks are irrelevant. Once we do have a source for the stuff in the section, we can then address the unencyclopedic dreamy tone of the section.

Obviously the ball remains in D's court to respond to the extensive documentation for each of the WP:RS in the Ambiguity section that is already presented in the Nirvikalpa discussion page- exactly as he requested.

I sincerely understand how annoying it must be for an administrator, particularly one with such proven intellectual depth, to contend with the ineptitude of us editors. Still Wikipedia protocol does encourage an appearance of mutual respect in the dialog between editors/administrators so MG suggests D tone down the sarcasm and condescension. Summarily deleting content without review suggests D has already assumed the mantle of the expert called for in the template he added. Furthermore Nirvikalpa ain't chopped liver so it would seem appropriate that our dialog proceed in a contemplative, centered and less ego-driven fashion even to the point of permitting language that is a bit 'dreamy'.

After D has had a chance to read and respond to the extensive argument in the discussion page I hope he can muster some humility to deal with the following issues.

Changing the title from 'Etymology' to 'Meaning' in the section that deals with word definition-infers that under this heading, the seeker will discover the ultimate truth of Nirvikalpa. Instead they find mere definitions which can be found in hundreds of Hindu glossaries. It would seem that- of course Wiki encyclopedia would want to start with a Etymology section but then address fundamental questions about Nirvikalpa- what is it?, how does it manifest?, is it attained and/or graced?, what are prerequisites for the experience?, what are the aftereffects? All these aspects are at issue and 'Ambiguities' seems a plausible title for a section that strives to present authoritative opinions about them with as much neutrality as possible.

D first edits the ref to Aurobindo and the Mother deleting 'at the time they spoke' thereby positing that they never had a nondual experience which cannot be inferred from the original WP:RD'. Never mind- D later deletes the entire A and Mother reference saying: (relevance of offhand observation not established). What is revealed here is that not all rishi have experienced Nirvikalpa Samadhi or its non-dual equivalence yet may still acquire the status of fully enlightened masters- not exactly offhand or irrelevant.

D deleted the phrase- 'Two of the most revered Vedic rishis' (which referred to Ramana Maharish and Sri Sankara) with the exasperated edit summary: (neither were "vedic rishis", sheesh). A five-minute search of Google will bring up several hundred hits including scholarly books where each is described as a 'vedic rishi'.

D posits that the 'concept' of Nirvikalpa Samadhi never appeared in Vedic texts. What is accurate is that the term Nirvikalpa or its Sanskrit equivalent did not appear but the 'concept' of an ultimate state of consciousness and realization of Atman using the terms Turiya and Turiyatita, was referred to which makes it accurate to speak of the 'concept' in Vedic texts. Further- when D rewrites this statement and retains the phrase- 'alluded to over eighteen centuries ago' he contradicts his own assertion that the 'concept' did not appear in Vedic texts.

Changing this sentence:

Despite constant revisions of the concept in Vedic and Buddhist texts by countless yogin and maharshi to establish its role in the process of enlightenment and what dharma and practices are prerequisite for its attainment- Nirvikalpa Samadhi, remains as numinous and ineffable as when it was first alluded to over eighteen centuries ago.

To:

Despite many discourses on the concept to establish its role in the process of enlightenment Nirvikalpa Samadhi remains as elusive and ineffable as when it was first alluded to over eighteen centuries ago.

Although this is certainly more concise (less cheesy?) it also is less richly informative by knocking out links to some fundamental aspects concerning the subject. 'Many discourses' reduces the immense body of formal philosophy that built the non-dual traditions to the scale of- 'lots of talk about' and considerably reduces the number of keywords for Google to index.

Not sure that contracting the two terms into a single link elusive and ineffable is helpful or why 'elusive' was added?

Looking forward to our cooperating with others to improve the Nirvikalpa article- Mayagaia (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Inter alia:
  • The "extensive review" only exposed the need for WP:RS. The only references that could qualify technically (by being published in peer-reviewed journals) were nevertheless immaterial, since they were all on some Dutch philosopher named Dooyeweerd. Reliable sources on the topic at hand - Nirvikalpa, or "ambiguities" relating thereto - are still lacking. Specifically, the opinions and statements of Adi Sankara and Ramana Maharshi need sourcing. The statement attributed to Aurobindo/The Mother was not pertinent: his/her/their personal experience of whatever is not encyclopedic information.
  • "Eighteen centuries ago" is the early 3rd CE. That's still about a millennium too late for the Vedic period proper (which was definitely over by around 500 BCE). It's about right, though, for the Yoga Sutra, which is not a Vedic text anyway. And it's too early for either Adi Sankara or Ramana Maharshi, so google searches for "vedic rishi" only shows that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
  • "Vedicizing" nirvikalpa by means of allegedly related terms is WP:OR until a WP:RS to that effect is produced.
  • This entire article is actually a WP:CFORK of the Samadhi article as the means to WP:COATRACK some random New Age-y philosophizing. There is nothing here that isn't covered adequately in Samadhi. A merge-back seems in order.
rudra (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Rudrasharman:
  • The list of references to Dr. Friesen's work was to establish his credibility as a scholar- not to suggest any of those particular refs would be appropriate as WP:RS for any of the content in the Ambiguities section.
It is incorrect to say that All the peer reviewed references (above) were on some Dutch philosopher named Dooyeweerd.
This is one exception: Abhishiktananda. Hindu Advaitic Experience and Christian Beliefs Bulletin of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies vol. 11 (1998)
The particular reference- the one used as WP:RS for the sources for opinions and statements of Adi Sankara and Ramana Maharshi was the following:
Friesen, John Glenn. "Abhishiktananda's Non-Monistic Advaitic Experience", Part 1, p. 212, 2002
This is a peer reviewed thesis published in an accredited scientific journal. With all this plainly evident in the extensive review in this discussion page- R still says the Ramana and Sankara statements need sourcing. Should I really have to tediously re-explain all this to Rudrasharman?
  • R sweeps away my argument why the Aurobindo/The Mother statement is pertinent to the Nirvikalpa article by saying personal experience is not relevant or encyclopedic. I'm sure with a few minutes of rethinking R will realize how absurd that idea is when applied to a description of a personal experience of a Ramana, or Buddha or indeed any biography in Wikipedia.
  • Since MG did not start the Nirvikalpa article, I have no attachment to it continuing so if there is some consensus for a merge-back- fine with me. At the rate deletions are occurring there will indeed be no purpose in distinguishing from the samadhi article.
  • MG does not intend to be the only one contending with POVs by R and D that assume such certainty about what is relevant and correct about the Nirvikalpa enigma. Unless some neutral expert can come into this discussion and insist that participants pay attention- I'm back to my day job. Mayagaia (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with the requirements of proper sourcing.

  • The Friesen link is to the University of South Africa library: its repository, while official, is not the same as a "peer-reviewed journal". As far as can be determined, he did not publish his thesis in a peer-reviewed journal, and he went on to other subjects (such as Dooyeweerd). At any rate, editorializations such as "disparage" would have to be attributed to him, and that would raise the issue of his credentials as a recognized scholar in this particular area, for which a dissertation thesis is not enough.
  • The Hindu-Christian Society bulletin/journal is not in Thompson, nor in the Lund University database. Its scholarly quality is unknown, in any verifiable way.
  • Abhishiktananda was just another swami. There are thousands of them. What makes him notable here such that effectively self-published material would be WP:RS? The dot-org link doesn't work any more, but whois shows it registered to what seems to be a fan club in Austria with the same name ("Abhishiktananda Society") as the presumably official organization in India.
  • Wikipedia prefers scholarly academic literature to personal reports, no matter how feel-goodish the latter may be in apparent relation to the subject.

There really is nothing to discuss unless reliable sources are produced. rudra (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious that if R's huge POV for establishing credentials as a recognized scholar were applied to all Wikipedia articles, 90% of the content should be deleted for lack of proper sourcing.
I could find no dot-org link that doesn't still work. If R is referring to http://www.hcstudies.org/contact.html reference it states that- "The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies features peer-reviewed articles...". Of course in any event that is not the WP:RS in question in the Ambiguities section. D designates the Friesen reference as 'effectively self-published material" thereby creating a straw horse which he then disqualifies.
There were other issues which MG raised beyond the Friesen reference which R, as usual, totally disregards- most likely because he spends all his time cumpulsively gathering minutia to support a point that is irrelevant to the main issue anyway.
I have to admit I'm more amused than annoyed with D and R's desperation to justify their POVs to throw the baby out with the bath.
I'll check back in a month or so to see whether the Nirvikalpa article survived. Mayagaia (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


The salvageable core of this article seems to be the various uses of nirvikalpa as an adjective. It's used in both Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, so that should be enough to provide a core to build on. rudra (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Analogous Concepts"

No reference has been cited making these connections of "analogous concepts" to "nirvikalpa (samadhi)". The references appear to be to works on the terms analogized, but in a random sampling, none of them said anything about "nirvikalpa samadhi" specifically. That's still okay if someone else made all these connections, but no such reference has been provided (and I seriously doubt one exists that would meet WP:RS). This entire section is WP:OR and a WP:COATRACK. rudra (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)