Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Removal of reference from Encyclopedia Brittanica

User:iddli , you have not given any reasons for removing the reference from Encl. Britannica.-Bharatveer 08:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Bharatveer, Consider this sentence from the EB article: “He immediately renounced his possessions, shaved his head, and fled from his village to Mt. Arunachala to become a hermit and one of India's youngest gurus.”
This description does not fit with any biography of Sri Ramana that I have ever read. The throwing away of his remaining money and the receipt for his ear rings and his sacred thread happened AFTER his arrival in Tiruvannamalai, as did the shaving of his head, not before he left Madurai. Also, he had left his village years earlier, to live with his uncle and attend a school where English was taught. Furthermore, the EB line suggests a sense of intention about becoming a guru. To the best of my knowledge, Sri Ramana did not go to Arunachala to become a guru. He went because he felt called there by his Father – Arunachala. There was no motive beyond that union. He had no aspirations to become a guru. I have not seen a single line written by Sri Ramana, or any devotee of his, that supports the claim that he fled his village to become a guru.
I cannot think of any good reason to link this small inaccurate description of Sri Ramana to the wikipedia article. We already have a link to the far more detailed and carefully researched biography by T. M. P. MAHADEVAN: ttp://www.arunachala-ramana.org/bhgvnram.htm. (Admittedly, we still need to work more on the Enlightenment experience and find sources for this, as suggested by David Godman – but even so, the TMPM bio seems to me to be a very valuable link.) If there is some point made in the EB description that you feel adds value to the wikipedia article, let’s try to find that same point made somewhere else, where it is not embedded in inaccurate details about Sri Ramana, and then include it. Best wishes to you.Iddli 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:DUCK. Seriously he is documented as a Hindu. His philosphy, teachings, etc are all Hindu. Whats the dispute?Bakaman 23:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
You statement itself is inaccurate. Who died and appointed two zealots regarding hinduism (as is apparent from the commnents on their talk pages), at least one a self admitted racist bigot against westerners, and whose knowledge of Sri Ramana is clearly very limited, to hijack this article, and attack the character and scholarship of a leading expert on Sri Ramana, who has lived at the Ashram in India since 1976, and to fill this article with misleading propaganda, obvious errors in Sri Ramana's teaching, and spam from those like Sivananda? Neither of you have provided good evidence to support excluding what a recognized expert has said based on reliable sources, and are obviously not interested in anything but insulting those who have done the research. It's clear from both your comments you aren't the least bit interested in any sort of dialogue and instead want to lecture those with far more study on the subject than you have. There is a place for controversies and less documented assertions, use it instead, don't make the lead a joke. Therefore, I will continue to remove the Sivananda spam, etc. --Dseer 03:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
And who appointed some random "devotee" to cleanse the article of details relating to Hinduism? Accusing people of bigotry is against policy and I will not hesitate to report you if you do not cease with the bs. Sivananda is not spam, he is one of the most respected (more than Ramana Maharishi) Hindu religious figures of the modern era. I see this pattern with every religious guru, devotees claiming that the practice isnt Hindu. If it looks like a Hindu, talks like a Hindu, and quacks like a Hindu, its Hindu. Britannica merely buttresses the assertion.Bakaman 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I did not purge the article of details related to hinduism, as you well know if you read my edit, in fact, I said Ramana was born a hindu and restored references to hinduism but taking into account what Godman said based on actual research. Bhavateer's version is not based on actual documentation but on second hand opinion. You both are deliberately contradicting expert Godman and substituting articles with proven errors to buttress your own preconcieved ideas, that is OR, while I am simply working with solid sources. Of course you can find related practices in hinduism but also in forms of buddhism, and advaita is only one of many branches of hinduism and even there Godman has outlined many distinctions, thus non-dualism is more correct. I am well aware of Sivananda's reputation and good intent but his bio is in error and is spam when it is used in that manner when there are more accurate sources. The Britannica article is nothing more than a stub like summary that contains too many errors which have been pointed out to no avail. That Bharatveer is a bigot is proven by his own words about westerners, since Godman has lived in India since 1976, and is hardly "christian" and "semitic". I am entitled to infer from the comments on your talk page something about your perspective here. Go ahead and report me for pointing Bharatveer's admitted bigotry. --Dseer 05:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
A classic case of "Pot calling the kettle black". User Dseer, stop your personal attacks. Please take a re-look at your own WP edits on articles related to Hinduism.-Bharatveer 06:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I pointed out your own words show you to be a bigot with respect to David Godman and westerners in general. No apology. I have nothing against the Dharma, only those who misuse it, and my edits show that. --Dseer 06:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Who is expert, Godman or Editors who post factually inaccurate information?

I think we need to prepare for dispute resolution. Author and Scholar David Godman who actually set up the Ashram library and who has lived in India since 1976 is currently the world's most widely respected source for information on Sri Ramana and his teachings. We have totally unrecognized editors with suspect knowledge here claiming based on suspect sources that he is so wrong that we can't even mention what he has said but they feel free to put in erroneous information at will. Editors with no expertise who don't even respond intelligently to the points raised or produce good evidence to the contrary, but only hurl propaganda and insults. We should rely on the best sources, and that includes Godman. --Dseer 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Why POV Tag Was Needed and Introduction is Suspect

While awaiting the return of more responsible editors who are not just edit warring and foisting obvious misleading OR and POV editing on this article without collaboration so we can initate dispute resolution and eventually overturn these malicious edits, let me summarize the dispute for readers. Bharatveer's own words reek of anti-western bigotry against the known expert and author David Godman, who came to India because of his interest in Ramana and has lived in India since 1976. Godman is not only a noted expert on Ramana, but has studied about and with a number of jnanis, and has provided well documented research. Bharatveer says, in dismissing him, that Godman "is just another westerner ( read christian) who looks at dharmic traditions through his semitic eyes." There is no way to characterize this as anything other than bigotry. And Bharatveer, despite being shown cases where he is proven wrong, insists on misusing sources and using sources with known factual errors, such as a Britannica stub and Sivananda article, over more accurate sources in support of an agenda. And, he refuses to acknowledge other views or conduct meaningful collaboration. So, for example, despite Ramana's own statement in a source provided next after his citations that Ramana's teaching was not based his readings but his own experience which he only later found to be consistent with traditional Advaita sources, and that he taught a variety of paths and practices based on the needs of those who asked, he insists on wording that states otherwise. He even claims falsely to other editors the issue is that I've been trying to eliminate Hindu references in relation to Ramana, when my proposed edits made to try and find middle ground which he reverted without collaboration prove otherwise. Neither did I attempt to change the hindu guru category. Let the record speak for itself.

My first attempt at a collaborative approach was reverted by Bharatveer as anti-hindu:

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a nondualist Indian Sage of Hindu origin who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. Although born a brahmin and often considered a Hindu guru, he renounced his caste and later declared himself to be atiasrami, unattached to anything in life and beyond all such restrictions [1]. He asserted his primary teaching was the radiant silence said to emanate from him as a result of his Self-abidance. Though his teaching is consistent with and generally associated with Hinduism, the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, Sri Ramana gave his approval to a variety of paths and practices from various religions [2]. Sri Ramana, when asked "What is the fastest way to realise the Self?" would recommend self-enquiry, the practice he is most widely associated with.

After changes by other editors, I then tried to follow another editor's suggestion based on the fact that Ramana was actually Tamil and wrote in Tamil, which was also reverted without collaboration:

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Tamil, Hindu sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in South India. His teaching was primarily based on his own experience of Enlightenment and some traditional scriptures of Advaita (nondual) Vedanta. He recommended self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation.

But Bharatveer rigidly insisted on his own, POV version:

Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Hindu Sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. He propounded advaita. His teaching was primarily based on the ancient upanishadic wisdom. He recommended Atma Vichaara or self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation.

His citations for this misleading and badly sourced introduction--(1) an inaccurate online Britannica stub (Britannica has been proven not to be error free), (2) an article which demonstrates that Ramana had no problem with idol worship, (3) an inaccurate, flowery commentary by Sivananda, and (4) an article by the same Godman whose suggestions he rejects to show that Ramana considered Arunachala sacred and a form of God.

Until this dispute can be resolved by editors more interested in actual documentation and an article up to encyclopedic standards rather than religious bias and an agenda, readers should be aware the introduction is not well sourced and is factually inaccurate. --Dseer 19:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's best not to characterize edits as "malicious". However unsourced, POV edits are not appropriate. If there are sources that show the subject is Tamil and based his teachings on his own experiences, and if there are no sources that show he wasn't Tamil or that he based his work on written texts, then we should certainly go with the sourced assertions. However we should be neutral if there are more than one sourced viewpoints on the issue. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
God bless Will Babeck, please hang around this page more often! Sethie 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Will, appreciate the comments. Ramana was beyond doubt a Tamil, he lived in Tamil Nadu, and Tamil was his primary language. He himself is documented to have said his teachings were based on his own experiences and spiritual awakening at age 16, not a study of Hindu scriptures or Upanishads, which he only read much later, and he had no teacher. Thus, he did not "propound" advaita, he interpreted it and sometimes modified classic doctrines and methods in the light of his own awakening, primarily in response to requests and questions. Not just David Godman, but also no biographer who has studied the subject to any depth, claims otherwise. Indian editors who assert based on logic of ethnic superiority that a noted expert (Godman) is incorrect have not produced quality biographical sources to back up their assertion. Therefore a neutral introduction would read something like this:
Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Tamil, Hindu Sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in Tamil Nadu, South India. His teaching was primarily based on his own spiritual experience (Self realization) and his later interpretations of some traditional texts, such as Upanishads and Gitas advocating Advaita (nondual) Vedanta. He recommended self-enquiry as the fastest way to Self realisation.
Until the inaccurate, POV portions are removed from the introduction, the POV tag should not be removed. --Dseer 06:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

When Bhagwan Raman Maharshi became a non-Hindu ?

Iddli regards Raman Maharshi as a non-Hindu because "there is also Sri Bhagavan's removal of his sacred thread after he offered himself at his Father's feet at the Arunachaleswara temple". Brahmopnashat asks a jnani (a liberated or Mukta soul) to discard external sacred thread. It does not mean they renounce Hinduism. Did Raman Mararshi renounce Hinduism ? Did he join any other religion or found a new one ? Did he renounce all religions and became an atheist ? It must be pointed out that whatever Raman Maharshi did was perfectly in line with upanishadic teachings and there is no case of calling him a non-Hindu. Court did well to protect his ashram from omnivorous boards, but why some persons are trying to expel Raman Maharshi from Hinduism is not clear. Bharatveer got angry with David Godman because of Godman's narrow attitude towards Hinduism. Most of David Godman's remarks about errors in that article are welcome, excepting his statement : "it is misleading to say that he was a Hindu. His state transcended all categories, including the religion he was born into." I respect Godman's feelings about Raman Maharshi, but his assessment of Hinduism is very narrow minded . Mukta souls do not champion any ism. But it is our duty to put facts as they are. Sanatana Dharma will lose its essence if Mukta souls are expelled from it. Swami Sivananda's comment on Raman Maharshi are perfectly true : "Ramana was a living example of the teaching of the Upanishads. .... A lifelong proof of the Upanishads was what we called Maharshi Ramana. That proof will for ever exist, reassuring us of the Ultimate Reality. ..... Dogmas and religious prejudices he cared not for! For he was far above those mundane limitations. With him lived orthodox Brahmin priests, Moslems and Christians and the so-called Indian untouchables. They were all alike to him." Gita also says the same thing about attitude of Mukta souls towards brahmins and Chandalas. Swami Sivanand was a sadhu like Raman Maharishi, and he had a first hand knowledge of Raman Maharishi ; why Swami Sivanand's assessment of Raman Maharishi cannot be quoted is not clear . Dseer and Iddli want to dissociate the Upanishadic teachings from those of Raman Maharshi, but in this attempt they are doing injustice to Raman Maharishi who was an upanishadic sage in true sense of the term. Those who want to declare Raman Maharishi a non-Hindu are trying to deprive Hinduism of its soul which is Upanishadic self-knowledge. Dseer should implement his "neutral" words expressed above ("a Tamil, Hindu Sage") in the lead. -VJha 09:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Vinay Jha. Your points about Sri Ramana and Hinduism make perfect sense to me. Godman's comments about Sri Ramana "transcending all categories" etc also seem valid to me, which is why I originally wanted the word Hindu moved down further in the article rather than being in the first line. It was never my intent to "declare Ramana Maharshi a non-Hindu" or to take a narrow view of Hinduism ... I was hoping to somehow "capture his essence" in that first line, and his essence seemed to go beyond Hinduism. However, I have put the word Hindu back in the first line because I find your defense of it compelling, and also because I feel my removal of it resulted in discord that is not moving us closer to our goal of making this article really superb. Thanks for your help. (Iddli 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC))


I appreciate that you are willing to talk about this, so at least we can get somewhere even if Bharatveer declines. Let's be clear first about which editor is advocating what and in what context, as you seem to be confusing me with others. Hinduism (Sanatana Dharma) recognizes the inherent result of its own practice being transcendance of religious limitations as a matter of dharma. I am not an editor who advocates purging references to Sri Ramana being a Hindu, and the history of my edits supports that. To be clear, the reason why "Tamil, Hindu" was not yet in the introduction already was that I did add it, but the same phrase was then purged by Bharatveer in the edit wars, so I left it on the Talk page to illustrate the dispute.
To start, what Godman said should be taken as a whole and in context, not parsed. As he said himself it was a nit-picking (in case there is anyone unclear as to the meaning of that term, it is defined by a dictionary as meaning "too much minor, overly particular criticism") point, and if something like that angers Bharatveer enough to provoke such inappropriate racial and religious comments, whose problem is that? What Godman said in totality on the issue was: "And now a couple of nit-picking points...I would also say that it is misleading to say that he was a Hindu. His state transcended all categories, including the religion he was born into. For what it is worth, there was a court case in the 1950s and 60s (cases drag on for years here) over the ownership of Ramanasramam. Bhagavan's family were contesting an attempt by the Hindu Endowment Board to take over the ashram. In his ruling the judge declared that since Bhagavan was 'atiasrami' he had transcended all religions. This meant that The Hindu Endowment Board could not take over his ashram since they only had the authority to take over Hindu establishments." In other words, Godman was making a minor point and a judgement exists supporting that point in a legalistic sense, so he is not just coming from a "narrow view" of Hinduism. The dilemma is simply how to express this kind of nuance in the context of defining Sri Ramana as a Hindu, and I think amplifying and clarifying language can accomplish that while retaining the reality that his transcendant "atiasrami" state is recognized by Hinduism and is consistent with it.
I repeat once more that my first edit in response to Godman's comments and Bharatveer's radical changes containing factual errors was this: "Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a nondualist Indian Sage of Hindu origin who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. Although born a brahmin and often considered a Hindu guru, he renounced his caste and later declared himself to be atiasrami, unattached to anything in life and beyond all such restrictions [1]. He asserted his primary teaching was the radiant silence said to emanate from him as a result of his Self-abidance. Though his teaching is consistent with and generally associated with Hinduism, the Upanishads and Advaita Vedanta, Sri Ramana gave his approval to a variety of paths and practices from various religions [2]. Sri Ramana, when asked "What is the fastest way to realise the Self?" would recommend self-enquiry, the practice he is most widely associated with." In this first, futile attempt to collaborate with Bharatveer, I deliberately restored the term Hindu removed by another editor to the introduction while qualifying and elaborating on the reasons behind Godman's concerns. I do not think Godman's concern was as much with the term Hindu as with the lack of qualifying and elaborating language on the term by itself since he was a self-declared atiasrami. Nowhere did I deny Sri Ramana was a Hindu or say Sri Ramana "renounced" Hinduism, and the use of the qualifying term non-dualist is consistent with modern practice since many Hindus are not non-dualists and Sri Ramana considered the Buddha a Sage also even though technically he renounced Hinduism, and because Sri Ramana did not advocate everyone changing religions or adopting practices from only one religion, but rather realizing the highest import of all religions which the Mukta embodies. Yet, not only did Bharatveer unilaterally and completely reject this, but he even rejected without discussion my final attempt: "Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Tamil, Hindu sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in South India. His teaching was primarily based on his own experience of Enlightenment and some traditional scriptures of Advaita (nondual) Vedanta. He recommended self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation." All the while falsely claiming that I was actively trying to purge references to Sri Ramana being Hindu despite proof from my edits to the contrary, and refusing to seriously collaborate.
Meanwhile, the problems with Bharatveer's version are basic: "Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Hindu Sage who lived on the sacred mountain Arunachala in India. He propounded advaita. His teaching was primarily based on the ancient upanishadic wisdom. He recommended Atma Vichaara or self-enquiry as the fastest way for Self realisation." In fact, Sri Ramana is both a Tamil and a Hindu, not just a Hindu, as I have said. We do not need an inaccurate source to prove something not really in dispute, that Sri Ramana was in a conventional sense a Hindu since Hinduism includes the ability within itself to transcend all such limitations via Mukta. And to claim that Sri Ramana "propounded" Advaita, when propound means "to offer for discussion or consideration", ignores the documented fact that Ramana most often taught silently, and spoke from his own experiences not from a specific philosophical school. To claim that "His teaching was primarily based on the ancient upanishadic wisdom" is incorrect, rather it was based on his own Mukti and instead of being based on it rather illustrates the the ancient upanishadic wisdom. Furthermore, there is a pattern of repetitively neither using the best available sources with the least errors, nor accurately represents what the source actually states in context. Let's not just focus on the false issue of my alleged attempts to eliminate Hinduism, let's focus on the actual choices editors have made and the details of the actual edits. --Dseer 02:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Support Bharatveer's most recent edit to wikilink Hindu, and have reworked introduction to (hopefully) resolve major areas of dispute and end the POV and "Anti-Hindu" issue while remaining factual. Have wikilinked other applicable terms, and applied appropriate Hindu terms that apply, such as Moksha, Jnani, Jivanmukta, etc., have amplified on Sri Ramana's relationship with Hinduism and that his atiasrami stage of life although beyond all restrictions is recognized in the Hindu Sastras, and have documented that his teaching included but was broader than simply Advaita, including approval of many paths and practices. I also urge those making allegations against David Godman to email him directly, which I think may show there is a serious misunderstanding of his intent. --Dseer 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Dseer, your changes to the introductory paragraph are excellent. This seems by far the best version! Thanks for improving it so much. (Iddli 04:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC))
It is nice to see all of you working as a team. That is what Maharshi would have liked. I do not misunderstand Godman, I appreciate him. I only insist that words have tremendous power, good as well as bad, and even if your intentions are good you may cause damage by a slight inappropriate use of words. I want to clarify two points made by Dseer : (1) Dseer says "Hinduism (Sanātana Dharma) recognizes the inherent result of its own practice being transcendance of religious limitations as a matter of dharma." This statement applies to only the ati-āshrami sanyāsis and not to grihasthas who make up more than 99.9 % of Hindus. (2) Dseer says "To claim that "His teaching was primarily based on the ancient upanishadic wisdom" is incorrect." I differ. Upanishadic practice is eternal and unwritten. I am myself an ati-āshrami ( a lifelong brahmachāri, living in solitude), but I do not mix with persons belonging to all religions, I avoid mixing with persons belonging to all religions. I did not have the fortune to meet the Maharshi, but I have met many Mukta souls. They talk without words. Strange ? I will not like to speak on this topic. Upanishad also means mystery. (3)I will be glad if Dseer's differences with Bakasuprman are amicably resolved. It takes two to start a fight. But only one party is enough to stop it. Tolerance is the other name of Hinduism. This page is not on my watch list, and if someone wants to communicate his reactions to me, he should briefly notify me on my talk page. -VJha Talk 19:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)