Talk:Kali's Child

Suppressed Literature
Kripal admits:
 * 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. (see: .)

So in the second edition of Kali's Child, I would imagine he no longer makes this claim. The article could be adjusted to note that he made the claim in the first edition, or that portion could be deleted. Devadaru (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Im adding this to the article, if it is not there already. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy/Bibliography
Brian Hatcher's review essay in the International Journal of Hindu Studies 3,2 (Aug 1999) has a largish biblio (though for some reason he missed Urban's and McLean's reviews) with citations of other literature. Directly relevant reviews and articles (and one exchange, Larson vs Kripal) listed: Sil's and Williams' articles may not be available - The RISA-L archives are closed to non-members, and the Hindu Studies Review has disappeared from the California State Univ Chico website (Williams has retired). rudra (talk) 09:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Swami Atmajnanananda, IJHS 1,2 (1997)
 * David Haberman, Journal of Asian Studies 56,2 (1997)
 * John Hawley, History of Religion 37,4 (1998)
 * Gerald Larson, The Journal of the American Academy of Religion 65,3 (1997)
 * (reply) Kripal, JAAR 66,3 (1998)
 * (rejoinder) Larson, JAAR 66,3 (1998)
 * Carl Olson, IJHS 1,1 (1997)
 * Jean Oppenshaw, Times Higher Education Supplement (15-Sep-1995)
 * André Padoux, Archives de sciences sociales des religions 41 (Apr-Jun, 1996)
 * William Parsons, Religious studies review 23,4 (1997)
 * William Radice, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 61,1 (1998)
 * Rajat Ray, Indian economic and social history review 34,1 (1997)
 * Narasingha Sil, RISA-L (mailing list) (10-May-1998)
 * TG Vaidyanathan, The Hindu (4-May-1997)
 * Pravrajika Vrajaprana, Hindu-Christian studies bulletin 10 (1997)
 * George Williams, Hindu studies review 2 (e-Journal, 1997)
 * Update: Sil's 10-May-1998 post to the RISA-L was also archived elsewhere. rudra (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's some great stuff if anyone was wondering just exactly how much Narasingha Sil hates fags. Good luck finding that certain someone. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update 2: Williams' article, cached at archive.org. rudra (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Update 3: The date of Oppenshaw's review in Hatcher's biblio is wrong. It should be 15-Dec-1995.    Also: Oppenshaw's review of Sil's revised book. rudra (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Intro., and POV.
After a scathing review written by historian Narasingha Sil was published in The Statesman, the book caused intense controversy among both Western and Indian audiences which still persists unresolved &mdash; None of the references indicate this cause and effect mentioned in the intro. In fact, urban says in the journal, "in the short time since its publication....". and the review appeared two years later.

Could somebody pls explain me, how a POV can be claimed by saying — " please stop using Wikipedia for religious prosyletizing "

-- vineeth (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Scholars"
There is a serious reoccuring error in this and the other Ramakrishna articles. Nvineeth writes: "Scholars indicate x...." It should be "Alan Roland argues y" or "In his 2001 article, Jeffrey Kripal says z" There is no scholars in the abstract. There is one or two people who have writen a particular thing, which was published in a particular place. I will remove all instances of referring to abstract scholars "indicating" whatever. It is highly POV, and an amateurish tactic. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes indicate is not correct (my mistake), but so is allege (which was introduced later).
 * According to the NPOV tutorial, NPOV_tutorial - "Neutral ways of expressing a statement -- "said," "wrote," "stated" -- are the safest".
 * According to NPOV:Words to avoid — "Argued" is neutral and useful to paraphrase how someone has promoted a view or idea.
 * Thanks for corrections involving argued, but the allegations will be removed. -- vineeth (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Huston Smith fragment --- needs context
This edit re-introduced a decontextualized sentence fragment after I removed it and requested a larger context. If we can't even obtain the entire sentence, the quotation is usless. A larger context would be better. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, Priyanath fixed it here. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"Arguments on"...
There is no need to mention "Arguments on" in each title. I have fixed this. Bluptr (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lot of Quote templates
This article has lot of quote templates, (for small quotes this is not necessary). Few gramatical fixes are required., but has good deal of information.. information on Jungian psychoanalysis as opposed to Freudian, will also present a good perspective. Bluptr (talk) 07:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Misleading quote from Larson
Larson writes, "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.". So now the lengthy quote, "...what psychoanalysis generally refers to as the "polymorphous sexuality"" gives a completely mis-information to the reader! This will be removed. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Started cleanup
The article was in need of a major cleanup and reorganization. I got only halfway through it. I have trimmed many quotes to the bare essentials or replaced them by in-line paraphrases, but all the essential information from the original article should still be there somewhere. In fact, there is still too much detail: this is meant to be an *encyclopedia* article, not a scholarly review. A lot of cleanup remains to be done in the rest of the article, from the "Distortions" section on. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that the article was written by devotees of a guru who saw their role as defending their guru from scholarship rather than writing a decent encyclopedia article. These editors have a strong WP:COI and should not be allowed to edit these articles. When you go to the original sources, you see that their work is dishonest and should be re-written. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recognize the problem (which is not limited to Ramakrishna or even to religions in general), but at I can't see how to deal with it except by correcting factual errors and trimming excessive detail, statements of opinion, and the like. I have trimmed some of that, but I feel that some criticisms (particularly those that descend to personal attacks) should be trimmed further.  Also the book by Ramaswami and DeNicholis seems to be cited an awful lot; does it really deserve it?  If those are indirect citations of other sources, the latter shoudl be cited instead. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reasoned reply.
 * Also the book by Ramaswami and DeNicholis seems to be cited an awful lot; does it really deserve it? 
 * In short, no. It was bankrolled by reactionary NRI Rajiv Malhotra. User:Relata refero quite accurately called it "a guide to egg-throwing". Its website reeks of a desperate wish to be taken seriously. Its "News and Media" page all but screams "no academics will go near us!" The book was published in order to give some superficial credence to those who would effectively ban the academic study of Hinduism. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * We cannot decide the reliability of a book based on the comments of some wiki editor and mischaracterization of other editors as "devotees of a guru" who should "not be allowed to edit these articles" does not help either. Invading the Sacred is included in the Religion additional content section of Britannica. Another review I came across was from Anantanand Rambachan, "There can be little doubt about the importance and legitimacy of many of the concerns raised by the authors of Invading the Sacred about the academic study of Hinduism in the United States." Another review by Prof.Jeffery D. Long can be found here. --TheMandarin (talk) 11:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[unindent]I would rather not have to take sides, but it is obvious that the opinions are extremely divergent and that this issue is emotionally charged. As I am a layman in these subjects, the best I can hope to do here is stick to the factual and fairness aspects. In particular, it is important to clarify which of the errors (translations and others) claimed by the critics were corrected in the 1998 edition. Also, Kripal apparently retracted his claims about censorship of the Jivanvrittanta; what about the Kathamrita and The Gospel? Methinks also that Kripal's responses (if any) to specific criticisms should be given more equal weight, either by citing them more explicitly or by trimming the criticisms proportionally. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I would request you to keep WP:WTA into consideration and avoid "claim", "point out" etc., and simply stick to "wrote", "argued" as per the guideline.. I will also do these fixes as and when I get time. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No mistakes of any consequence were corrected. Kripal never published a list, either.  So the curious are obliged to wade through the book and check manually.  Some horrors, however, were defiantly retained, such as the insistence that "cocked hips" is a correct translation of "tribhanga".  The good news is that Kripal is no longer deigning to lecture native Bengalis on their own language based on his translations out of dictionaries.  The bad news is that, with his Sanskrit no better than his Bengali, he has now moved on to Tantra studies or somesuch as the next worthy field in need of his "insights".  rudra (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If you take the time to read the article that you are supposedly comnmenting on, you'll see that he is no longer writing on Indian culture at all. Too many death threats, probably from the same bunch who you find so insightful. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Goethean, we were discussing about Bengali (mis)translations. I think Tyagananda is not the only one, even before him Rajat Kanta Ray (1997) discusses this in Indian Economic & Social History Review, Vol. 34, No. 1 --TheMandarin (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mistranslations
The section on mistranslations notes only one case where Kripal corrected the error in the second edition. Were the othe errors retained? If not, the list should be trimmed leaving only those which were not corrected in the 1998 edition, with a short mention that the 1995 edition had {some|many} other errors. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Somnath Bhattacharyya
There are several citations in this and other related articles to the views of Somnath Bhattacharyya, who is said to be professor emeritus [=retired] at the Psychology Department of the University of Calcutta. Can someone provide a refence for this fact? (The University's faculty page does not list emeriti, and Google finds only the Wikipedia refernces.) I need such a source in order to create a bio-stub for him (see  User:Jorge Stolfi/Nursery/Somnath Bhattacharyya). Thanks, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that he is notable enough to have a biography on Wikipedia. He was useful to the aims of the writers of this article. That's why he appears to be so large of a figure. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not subscribe to the so-called "notability requirements". My view is that any person who is cited in any Wikipedia article *must* have an article in Wikipedia.  This is especially important for "non-notable" persons (as some would perhaps classify SB), because otherwise a reader may waste a lot of time trying to figure out who the person is.  For example, Google turns up many "Somnath Bhattacharyya", including the occureces of his name in Wikipedia.  Every reader who will try sifting those records in search of the "right" SB will waste perhaps half an hour, and end up quite frustrated. Readers deserve better, and Wikipedia has the means to deliver it.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tellingly, the only reference that I can find for him is in Invading the Sacred. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Somnath Bhattacharyya including several other scholars on the article page come under WP:ONEVENT ( even though supported by other news sources ) and does not deserve a separate article. Another thing is that this name is awfully common in Bengal and one is sure to get several mishits. All the best--TheMandarin (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the "notability requirements" (like almost everything in WP:*) are the opinions of a small minority of the Wikipedia editors, and definitely not mine. The fact that Google gives many wrong hits for "Somnath Bhattacharyya" is enough reason why Wikipedia should have an article on him --- namely, so that readers of this article can get *reliable* information *on the right person* (even, or especially, if that information is just "he was a professor at the U. of Calcutta" or "he is a psychoanalyst in private practice"). If the deletionists then choose to delete that article, well, there are lots of wrongdoings in the world that I cannot prevent. In any case, before creating the article we need *some* reliable evidence on him. At this point I have no reliable and independent source for either statement, and I don't know any paper by him on an academic journal.  The sources all seem to be derived from the same single source, whose reliability I cannot judge but is obviously being much disputed.  It is even possible that his name was misspelled in the citations.  So, strictly speaking, at this point the Wikipedia article on him would have to be an entirey blank page. Any help would be appreciated.  All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is way too long
I am running out of gas with this article. I would like to think that it has improved, but I am still quite unhappy with it. Stepping back, I would say that it is *way* too long and goes dow to an absolutely unnecessary level of detail. The detailed reviews, criticisms and responses are esily available in the net for anyone who cares, and it is pretty unnecesary to repeat them here. Thus the sections "Positive reviews", "Criticisms", and "Kripal's responses" could be trimmed to a couple of paragraphs each, summarizing the *kind* of arguments made. Besides, the texts repeat each other to a large extent; so the reader who cares can get a good picture of the controversy by reading just one or two pieces from each side. But that is just my fuzzy opinion at the moment. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with you, summarizing the kind of arguments with appropriate refs seems to be a good idea, interested readers can always look it up, while article does not loose its focus. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words
Request User:Goethean to explain the reverting to usage of weasel words. It would be more apt to include at least the subset of scholars involved. --TheMandarin (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the tags are inappropriate too, because (1) the article is not the place to carry out editorial disputes, and (2) those are not "weasel words" but merely accurate, balanced summaries of what is expanded in utterly nauseating detail in the body of the article. Trying to put more detail in the lede would soon bring us back to the start: the lede woul keep growing until we would have to move everything to the body and write a new summary. Besides, what use is to readers to list *names* of critics and praisers there? Readers who have never heard of Kali's Child will probably not have heard of those people either. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fine Jorge Stolfi, agree with you.... adding the names in the lede would bring us back to the start . However I have tweaked a bit towards eliminating redundancy. IMHO can be tweaked further. --TheMandarin (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jorge, however, some refs can be added to lede to flesh out what is being referred to. Otherwise, future editors may tag it as TheMandarin did. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rearrangement underway
I have begun to rearrange the contents in chronological order, even though I am not sure it will be an improvement over the current format. Perhaps it will have to be reverted en bloc at the end. 8-( I have to take a break now, and plan to be back within 24 hours. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Priority and repetition
I have read Atmajnanananda's article and it seem that many of the criticisms that are attribued to Tyagananda, Bhattacharyya, Invading the Sacred, etc. were first raised by him in 1997, and merely reproduced by the later sources. It seems also that some of the translation errors that he mentioned (like magi-bitches) were pointed out by Openshaw in 1995, but I do not have access to her article on the Times Higher Education; could someone check that, eventually? Thanks. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think atmajnanananda was the first one to point about magi not Openshaw. Anyway here are couple of articles from Times Higher Education:
 * Apart from these, we can benefit from the new perspectives on psychoanalysis, by Renuka M. Sharma, a feminist & psychoanalyst herself in her sophia review.
 * --TheMandarin (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apart from these, we can benefit from the new perspectives on psychoanalysis, by Renuka M. Sharma, a feminist & psychoanalyst herself in her sophia review.
 * --TheMandarin (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is unbalanced
The article contain reams of detailed and repetitive material about each and every criticism of the book, and the tiniest mentions of the many positive reviews. However, User:TheMandarin, above, continues to push for still more negative material to be added to the article. One doubts that any amount of negative material, no matter how outrageously excessive, will ever please the enemies of religious scholars. I am adding the POV template to the article. It should remain until these issues are resolved. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 04:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * goethean the material added contains important scholarly perspectives, such as the chronological confusion, Larson's important rejoinder etc., It is strange that you consider this has been added to "please the enemies of religious scholars". --TheMandarin (talk) 07:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that in response to my tag, you have continued to make the article even more unbalanced by adding more excessive negative material. Good show. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent sarcasm Goethean. You yourself had added cn tags earlier and its strange that adding references, removing product catalogue page,diff will render the page "even more unbalanced". --TheMandarin (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Kripal "claims", while swamis "point out"
I've noticed that according to this article, Kripal trends to "claim" things, while the Ramakrishna Mission swamis appear to simply "point out" the obviously true. This is of course just a reflection of the fact that this article is a disgraceful joke in regards to neutrality and basic honesty. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not the question of Kirpal or swamis or others referenced. I found that even swamis "claim", the word usage needs to be fixed per WP:WTA uniformly ( also pointed at one of discussion above ). --TheMandarin (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New Book
New book just out, by Swami Tyagananda and Pravrajika Vrajaprana: Interpreting Ramakrishna:Kali's Child Revisited. Another round in the back-and-forth... (published by Motilal, see this. Devadaru (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And still the major primary biographical documents of Ramakrishna's life remain untranslated into English, and the Kathamrita is translated only in a heavily censored paraphrase. BLP violation removed Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC) &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They have placed a PDF file on their website, called The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: The Missing Text, which purports to contain all the missing, "untranslated", and "mistranslated" portions of the Gospel (except for the ones dealt with in their book). This may be of interest to some contributors here. Devadaru (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Its ironical that Francis Xavier Clooney is a professor who also earned his doctorate from University of Chicago; Its ironical that there are other "blurbs" from Gerald James Larson, Anantanand Rambachan --TheMandarin (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * They have placed a PDF file on their website, called The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna: The Missing Text, which purports to contain all the missing, "untranslated", and "mistranslated" portions of the Gospel (except for the ones dealt with in their book). This may be of interest to some contributors here.
 * I was referring to Ram Chandra Datta's Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta, an important biographical document of Ramakrishna which has never been translated into English and probably never will be. The Ramakrishna Mission is deeply ashamed and embarrassed of the description of Ramakrishna contained in it, a description at odds with the Christianized, sanitized saintly figure which they present to their devotees and which the Wikipedia entry on Ramakrishna obediently presents to the world, according to the strident demands of a group of patently dishonest Indian hooligans. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Good personal attack, I thought you had resolved to change; Anyway never mind. Nice speculation on a book now in its 10th ed. Amiya Prosad Sen discusses Srisriramakrsna Paramahamsadever Jivanavrttanta and does not make baseless allegations like Kripal...only to get embarrassed and withdraw them later. Wonder what you have to say about this "patently dishonest" edit of yours. On a serious note, have you managed to find the references to the "patently dishonest" addition, to repeat my previous question about your addition and I ask you again--"What is the need to add failed verification and later fight for it by abusing others? For ex : I recently discovered while cleaning up Kakar's article. This edit by you which makes controversial claims is not available in the source cited at all. And what's more, you have argued for the inclusion of this false information." ;" Where did you find it in the citation? You are yet to answer this question. Best Wishes. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, when presented with clear evidence of the hypocrisy of the Ramakrishna Mission, your tactic is to introduce tons of irrelevant garbage. It is an effective tactic &mdash; boring people to death. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The point is, a editor who attacks other editors as "..patently dishonest Indian hooligans" is unable to provide a honest justification for the material he has added. --03:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I called something a website add you want to call it an academic journal. That's your major beef? On the other hand, the Ramakrishna Mission has routinely misrepresented its guru to the world, suppressed basic biographical materials about its guru, and demonizes any scholar who dares discuss these matters. And you have succeeded in helping this religious cult get its lies reproduced on Wikipedia servers. A bit of a false equivalence. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * All participants are reminded that BLP policy applies in all namespaces, even talk pages. Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeffery Long (a university professor) has a review of the new book in the Vedanta Kesari, November 2010. PDF version of the whole issue is here. Devadaru (talk) 16:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A religious journal published by the Ramakrishna Mission. You're consistent, if nothing else. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As are you, my friend! :-) Devadaru (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility
I don't have strong objections to the last edit which I undid. Vedanta Kesari could I think better be characterized as a magazine or journal than a newsletter, but the edit seemed OK and normal in the course of working on an article. But I was, frankly, angered by the characterization of material that I had added "in good faith" as "woo woo BS"; that's why I undid the edit. I will try to remember to be careful about my language. Hope others may do the same. Devadaru (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Interpreting Ramakrishna
Regarding Jeff Long's review: though Long is by his own admission a devotee, he is also an academic scholar, a university professor with all the credentials. He has, it seems to me, one foot in each world, the "insider devotee world", and the scholarly, academic world. He wouldn't jeopardize his career by writing carelessly or at the direction of anyone else. I don't think we can call him a "primary source" on the book Interpreting Ramakrishna; rather he would be a secondary source, although one might argue that he was a biased one. But what secondary source is unbiased? About third-party sources: WP:PRIMARY says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." ... "Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." Devadaru (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Laughable. A Ramakrishna Mission newsletter is not a reliable source on critics of Ramakrishna. If Jeffrey Kripal published a newsletter on the Ramakrishna Mission, would that be a reliable source for criticism of the Mission? One can imagine the howls of derision that Ramakrishna followers would emit in response to such a suggestion. And yet your suggestion is precisely analogous. You continue to openly flaunt Wikipedia policy with your edits and comments. But this is nothing new; it is exactly in line with your past behavior, and the behavior of the other Mission-promoters. Please stop using Wikipedia as your personal bullhorn to promote the Ramakrishna Mission and to attack Jeffrey Kripal. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, my friend, hello again. May I just point out that Vedanta Kesari is not a "newsletter"? It carries all kinds of articles, and only a short section of news at the back. It is an organ of the mission, but not a newsletter. Long's article, it seems to me, presents the opinion of a scholar who is friendly to the mission, but is an independent thinker. Anyhow, I recognize that it looks a little funny to quote a review of a book written by a monk of the mission that appeared in a journal of the mission. I grant your point. But I may add, my dear, that you yourself "continue to openly flaunt Wikipedia policy" in your own way with your consistently un-civil tone in comments and edit summaries. And apparently not only here; your talk page indicates that you step on toes all over the place. I believe that good and reasonable people can disagree, and I am fairly sure you are a good and reasonable person, who has an obvious dedication for truth. I consider myself the same; I wish you could try to respect that point, and assume good faith. I have studied and analyzed the information available to me and concluded that Kripal is completely wrong; you have concluded (it seems) that he is right. Fine. May I request you to read Tyagananda's book? Give it a chance? You will say you won't waste your money on it, so I make this offer to you: if you agree to read the book, or at least give it a thorough perusal, I will purchase and send a copy to you at my expense. If you agree, send mailing info (you can give a friend's address to maintain anonymity) to s devadarugmail com. Wishing you all the best. —Devadaru (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The assumption is that Kripal is so obviously wrong that I, in my benighted, unenlightened ignorance, simply need to read Tyagananda's brillant, wonderous take-down of Kripal, and I will be converted into a Ramakrishna Mission devotee like yourself.


 * The facts of the matter are these. I have read the scholarly debate around Kali's Child, which took place in academic journals. Each of the scholars who reviewed Kali's Child wrote that Ramakrishna's homosexual leanings are not at issue. Let me repeat myself: to scholars of Bengali religion, Ramakrisha's homosexual leanings are not up for debate. The matter is settled. The only people for who this information is a horrifyingly shocking, unsayable, unthinkable thing are the Ramakrishna Mission swamis and their devotees. Why are the devotees so completely and totally ignorant of the true status of the debate surrounding Ramakrishna? Because they only read Mission-approved literature about Ramakrishna, like your newsletter which you are adamantly, stubbornly dedicated to adding to this Wikipedia article through bullying, edit warring, and abuse of policy. And those texts are full of lies.


 * Reading the academic debate around Kali's Child took a significant amount of time and effort on my part, time which was completely wasted, because a group of editors have successfully blocked my efforts to edit these articles in a factual, neutral manner which reflected the academic debate. These editors are committed to using Wikipedia to promote a religious organization. They have no scuples regarding honesty. They consistently cheat, lie and break rules in order to get their way. Because they are working on behalf of a religious organization, anything will be forgiven for them. The ends justify any means.


 * I added a description of the academic debate, which took place in academic journals, to the Ramakrishna article. And it was removed again, and again, and again, and again, by yourself and your allies. You came up with one hundred reasons why the debate cannot be discussed here or there. Only Mission articles by swamis and can be used here. And there is no end to the amount of Mission references that must be added to each and every Ramakrishna-related article. Your organization is nothing more than a religious cult who sees itself as under attack, so they produce reams of defenses, explaining that in complete contrast to his own words and actions, Ramakrishna had no sexuality.


 * You may send me your book if it makes you happy, or if you think that you will gain some favor in this life or the next by sending it to me. I will read it. But have no illusions. I have read the academic debate, and, not being an agent of a religious organization, and like every other non-devotee, non-swami scholar who has written on the matter, I will come to my own conclusions &mdash; and my guess is that you won't like them. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you are a strange chap, Gothean. I don't expect that you would be convinced or "won over" by the book (well, okay, maybe hoped a little!), but hope that at least you could get a glimpse into the other side's viewpoint, and might relinquish or at least tone down your ideas about people who take the other side in this argument (that we are dishonest, liars, evil people, idiots, mindless agents of an evil religious order, etc.). Quite frankly, you come across (to me) as being just as fanatical as you claim people like me to be. I hope if you read the book you could understand that the opposing viewpoint is not fanatical but also reasonable. In fact, I continue to be amazed by how angry you are, and how you seem to think that Ramakrishna devotees are evil people. Can't you understand that we resent that? My friend, I bet we would agree on a lot of things—politically, socially we are more or less on the same page (I saw your blog). We are thinking people dedicated to truth like yourself. When you spit back that I have no "common human decency", that I am a liar, do you think I will feel happy? No, I feel hurt. When you say the texts I read are full of lies, I feel hurt. Brother, a lie is a conscious deception. I don't care if you think the texts we read are full of misunderstandings, or mistakes, but lies? Come on, guy, we are thinking people too. When you insult us like that, sure we're gonna resent it!


 * I have no problem if people want to think RK was gay. But when someone claims that he molested young boys, and that devotees know this fact but cover it up, and then says it's proved by scholarship of a "Bengali Scholar" who can't even hold a conversation in the Bengali language, then we get angry. It is my conviction that these things did not happen. It is not a "knee-jerk" reaction. I read Kripal's book (most of it, 1st ed.), and at first became very suspicious of the Mission. But as I started learning Bengali, and started getting deeper into things, I became convinced that Kripal is wrong. I thought at first that he was devious, that he knew that he made things up. Looking over his website, I now lean towards thinking that he has convinced himself that he is right; he actually thinks he is correct. (By the bye, Tyagananda doesn't "take down" Kripal in this book, he limits himself to discussing (and "taking down") Kali's Child, the book. And there is quite an extensive discussion about other scholarship too.)


 * Please don't forget that I am a thinking, breathing, feeling human being like yourself. And I will try the same. We happen to stand on distant opposite sides of the debate on Ramakrishna. Both of us are dedicated, it seems, to wanting the article on Ramakrishna to reflect the truth. You feel that Kripal and scholars like him have uncovered a truth about RK; we honestly believe that scholars like Kripal have, willingly or perhaps innocently, twisted the truth, and have completely misunderstood Ramakrishna. How to work out a compromise? I don't know. But I have learned enough Bengali to be able to say that Kripal is definitely not a straightforward translator, and I don't trust anything in his book anymore. I will send the Interpreting Ramakrishna book. It may take a month or two; ordering from India. Best wishes—Devadaru (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are so sure of yourself, why do you consistently misrepresent my words? As I have pointed out over and over and over again &mdash; most recently yesterday &mdash; it is not one scholar who believes that Ramakrishna was homosexual, it is nearly every non-devotee academic who has studied the matter.


 * Since you seem to have trouble apprehending my words, Let's review the list of scholars again. Some of the scholars who have &mdash; in academic journals or university press-published books, not the newsletters of a religious cult &mdash; described Ramakrishna's homosexuality as established, settled, uncontroversial fact, include:
 * Malcolm McLean
 * Narasigha Sil
 * Gerald James Larson
 * Brian Hatcher
 * Walter Neevel
 * Hugh Urban
 * John Stratton Hawley
 * David Haberman
 * William Radice
 * Jeffrey Kripal
 * Wendy Doniger


 * The references are available on my userpage, in diffs where you repeatedly removed the content from the Ramakrishna article. You see, your stance is that readers should not see this content. You want it removed from the public record and from the debate. I want the debate to be read. You want it to be hidden. This is always the case with religious organizations which see themselves as under attack. Hide, deny, evade, and run away. Admit nothing.


 * So please stop describing Ramakrishna's homosexuality as the mistaken belief of a single scholar who, according to the swamis, supposedly doesn't know any Bengali. Kripal's knowldge of Bengali is not the question. The question is why you want the debate removed from the public record.


 * And let's talk about your views. Your view is apparently that all of these scholars have been decieved by Kripal. Do you maintain that none of them have any knowledge of Bengali? Keep in mind that Malcom McLean has produced the first accurate translation of the kathamrita, after your hardworking swamis failed to do so for 77 years. It was McLean's PhD dissertation. How's his Bengali? It must not be as good as yours, since he believes that Ramakrishna was a homosexual. That must be why you want his view excised from all Wikipedia articles.


 * Or perhaps you believe that I misrepresent their views. Would you like me to produce extended quotations from academic journals in which they discuss the matter? It is not a problem.


 * The other part of your view is that the work of these scholars, published in academic journals, WILL NOT be used to source Wikipedia articles on Ramakrishna. But of course, Jeffrey Long, writing in a Ramakrishna Mission newsletter, is a perfectly appropriate source. And that I am a fanatic, not you.


 * Have you ever wondered why in piles and piles of books that the Ramakrishna Mission has published on Ramakrisha, that they have never broached the subject of Ramakrishna's sexuality? They write giant tomes attacking Kripal, and yet they somehow manage to avoid the subject matter of the book that they are attacking. For your information, that is not standard operating procedure among academics. In fact, it is very peculiar and weird. I will tell you why the swamis consistently evade the topic of Ramakrishna's sexuality. It is because the undeniable biographical facts of the matter directly and clearly contradict the religious doctrines of the swamis. They know this, and you know this. That is why they will not under any circumstances discuss it. The swamis are frauds. I am sorry that you have not yet figured this out. I am also sorry that through deception, dishonesty, and fraud, you have blocked the readers of Wikipedia from understanding the facts of the debate around Ramakrishna's sexuality. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow, nice tactics, You combine the book reviewers and present that as "academic consensus"; You studiously avoid Rajat Kanta Ray, Gayatri Spivak, Renuka Sharma, etc., In the list you have , one scholar writes contrary to what you say, I leave you to figure that yourself. How about the failed verification and deliberately misquoted date you added? Have you managed to find the references for that, it had been more than a year since I pointed your failed verifications... --TheMandarin (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, G, for clarifying your position. I know you will find it hard to believe, but many thinking people, myself included, actually believe, yes, that all those scholars are wrong. Their view, though perhaps in the majority among western scholars, is a very small minority fringe view in the greater world of readers of the original source materials, meaning mainly people of Bengal and Bangladesh. The "insider view" (as Tyagananda puts it) would be more along the lines that Ramakrishna has completely conquered the sex impulse. Ok, you think that's not possible. Fine. But there are thinking people who believe it is possible. Anyhow, the article as it stands now does include a fairly large section on "Psychoanalysis and Sexuality", thanks largely to you. Best wishes, Devadaru (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, you have admitted that I did not take these scholars out of context, that I accurately represented their published views when I added text to the Ramakrishna article and was immediately reverted by you, User:TheMandarin, User:Priyanath, and others in the diffs supplied above. Apparently, you reverted my edits again and again because you believe that these scholars are "wrong", and that Ramakrishna "conquered the sex impulse". Your claim that the consensus of Anglo scholars represents a small minority opinion, and should not be used in the Ramakrishna biography, is laughable and indefensible. You claim that the views of these scholars should be suppressed because you and the swamis believe differently than they do. It should now be clear to everyone reading this what a profound disservice has been done to the readers of Wikipedia by the followers of the Ramakrishna Mission. And it was not done by accident. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 11:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear friend, I thank you for clarifying your view. I think I am beginning to understand you, and accept that your view is more or less plausible, given your presuppositions. However, some of those presuppositions seem to me to be deeply flawed. I'm sorry that you can't see that our view is also plausible (given our presuppositions). Maybe the book would help that, but I now doubt that very much. Still, as I promised to send it, I will, and I know that you will read it, as you have likewise promised. I don't have the energy or interest now to continue this discourse, however. But I do sincerely wish you all the best. In the words of Swami Vivekananda, "Come up, O lions, and shake off the delusion that you are sheep; you are souls immortal, spirits free, blest and eternal; ye are not matter, ye are not bodies; matter is your servant, not you the servant of matter!" Devadaru (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The difficulty for you and your allies is that my "presuppositions" reflect the policies of Wikipedia, namely, that academic journals and university press publications are more reliable sources of information than newsletters published by a religious sect. When I added information to the Ramakrishna article which was well-sourced &mdash; and above all, true &mdash; you and other editors removed it again, and again, and again, and again, and again. You were wrong to do so. You violated Wikipedia policy flagrantly. Bad deeds have consequences. They will come out. You ganged up with others, and, empowered by your numbers, you broke the rules, because you had the power to do so.


 * Since you offered me advice, I have some advice for you. Don't run away from dialogue, even when it shows that you are wrong, and that you acted wrongly. Don't hide. Be courageous. Question the swamis, and their motives. Question your own assumptions. It takes guts to admit that you are wrong. Be brave and face the facts. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I say the same to you my friend, "It takes guts to admit that you are wrong." Let's face it, we are not going to agree about Ramakrishna. Actually, Long's review helped me understand why. He says: "It often is the case that, where one person sees a highly enlightened and spiritually realized being in an advanced state of samadhi, another person sees a deeply troubled and mentally ill individual in need of extensive therapeutic treatment. Both, it seems, are highly stubborn perceptions that cannot easily be swayed by argument, any more than one can be swayed into saying that the sky is not blue. They are effects of prior metaphysical commitments that are so deeply embedded in the psyche of the perceiver as to have become part of the mental equipment—the computer software, if you will—with which the perceiver's reality is constructed." Our realities are simply constructed differently. (download link for Nov 2010 VK) I won't revert your latest edit. If TheMandarin or others don't revert it, someone else will, I am sure, since the view you are promoting is a minority view based on flawed "scholarship". I am sorry that you are so angry about all this, but I make no apologies for my actions. With best wishes, Devadaru (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't need to agree about Ramakrishna &mdash; we only need to agree on the implementation of Wikipedia policy. Although, by the way, Kripal never says that Ramkrishna did not have an authentic spiritual and mystical realization --- in fact, to say so would contradict his life's work about the intersection of mysticism and eroticism. I believe &mdash; and as far as I know Kripal believes &mdash; that Ramakrishna did have a profound mystical realization. It is the Mission's followers who can't wrap their minds around the idea of a homosexual having a mystical realization &mdash; or, more accurately, of their Christ-figure being sexual at all.
 * If TheMandarin or others don't revert it, someone else will, I am sure, since the view you are promoting is a minority view based on flawed "scholarship".
 * You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. If my edit fairly represents reliable sources, it should stay. If it misrepresents sources, or if the sources are unreliable, it should go.
 * I am sorry that you are so angry about all this, but I make no apologies for my actions.
 * I am angry that my efforts to improve Wikipedia articles have been systematically, deliberately obstructed over a period of several years. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Devadaru--before we proceed--I want Goethean to give the justification for his addition of failed verification. I see a clear difference between his words and actions: An alternate view on your "efforts to improve Wikipedia articles" esp Ramakrishna related articles taken from the past few months: 1, 2, 3, 4. To give proof for your failed verification and addition of false information: This edit by you which makes controversial claims is not available in the source cited at all. And what's more, you have argued for the inclusion of this false information.. --TheMandarin (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You are accusing me of misrepresenting sources. That is a serious charge. Maybe you should bring it up to an administrator, or on an administrator's noticeboard, or to ARBCOM. I predict that you will not, because your charges are garbage and you know it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 04:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh really? thats why you are not in a position to provide an explanation...or may be explain how 1995 in Amiya Sen's journal gets changed to 1880...or how Neevel and Hatcher are misrepresented. I am still waiting for you explanation on adding failed verifications without further digressions. We will also discuss about these at the places you have indicated when the right time comes. Why don't you plainly give the explanation instead of digressing? You call them "garbage" and so it must be easily explicable...eh? --TheMandarin (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Then let me be more direct. either bring your false accusations to an administrator immediately or shut up about them. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You know that ANI / RFC user conduct dont look into content disputes. Why don't you approach WP:mediation and prove that what you say is correct, just the way I have given a point-by-point analysis? Mediation committee can go though the articles and a lot of other articles and journals which I guess both of us will be happy to provide them. If this does not workout I am sure WP:ARBCOM will definitely go into the content and validate it. --TheMandarin (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kali's Child. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515010546/http://www.swaveda.com/journal.php?jid=2&j=Evam to http://www.swaveda.com/journal.php?jid=2&j=Evam

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted additions to article - should be reverted
I added two points, which I believe gives a clear overarching perspective of the ongoing controversy (while not taking sides) of translations errors and an explanation, using Kripal's own statements, as to why the controversy continues after the last edition of his book:

...but as of 2004 the controversy still continued, "as admitted errors stand uncorrected in the book and other points have not yet been addressed."

This is a direct admission by Kripal, as quoted in the article, and explains the ongoing controversy, better than point by point examples. From the main article, "As for the alleged translation errors, Kripal argued that he had corrected many of them in the second edition, acknowledged that others still needed to be corrected."

and

"Some critics have questioned if anyone at the University of Chicago Press or the American Academy of Religion who reviewed the book prior to publication were fluent in Bengali"

This was pointed out by Huston Smith and many others, without assigning motive for the mistakes. Please let me know why I shouldn't revert the deletion. I'll give a few days for more input, but then I intend to revert the deletion. Thanks for your consideration. Ellis408 (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've already explained to you; see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. You added diff info to the lead; the WP:LEAD summarizes the article. You added/changed the following:
 * into
 * This is WP:UNDUE and polemical. The article has a section on Tyagananda and Vrajaprana's criticism; if to be added at all, this sentence belongs there, not in the lead. But had you read the article, you would have found the following:
 * This is WP:UNDUE and polemical. The article has a section on Tyagananda and Vrajaprana's criticism; if to be added at all, this sentence belongs there, not in the lead. But had you read the article, you would have found the following:
 * This is WP:UNDUE and polemical. The article has a section on Tyagananda and Vrajaprana's criticism; if to be added at all, this sentence belongs there, not in the lead. But had you read the article, you would have found the following:
 * This is WP:UNDUE and polemical. The article has a section on Tyagananda and Vrajaprana's criticism; if to be added at all, this sentence belongs there, not in the lead. But had you read the article, you would have found the following:


 * You also added to
 * the following:
 * 2004 is a long time ago, and Kripal has published more after that date, as have his critics. Does this belong in the lead at all? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2004 is a long time ago, and Kripal has published more after that date, as have his critics. Does this belong in the lead at all? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2004 is a long time ago, and Kripal has published more after that date, as have his critics. Does this belong in the lead at all? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2004 is a long time ago, and Kripal has published more after that date, as have his critics. Does this belong in the lead at all? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  18:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Joshua, My suggested edit was not to support or argue with any of the opinions listed. The root of major disagreements about the book are given no rational explanation - it just dives into the various opinions. My edit is an attempt to address why the controversy erupted so broadly, and why it continues, without taking sides.


 * It needs to be stated up front that the many translation errors occurred because neither Kripal nor the pre-publication reviewers and editors were conversant with Bengali, especially rural 19th Century Bengali. I don't believe that's disputed anywhere. It actually deflects the many criticisms that Kripal's mis-translations were intentional and gives context as to why there were so many errors. I feel strongly that this is an important point for the article, that needs to be up front - before the listed opinions.


 * I only cited Tyagananda's paper, as it addresses this issue in the title of his piece. But, perhaps that's not needed.


 * That errors were admitted by Kripal, but have not been corrected in a new edition or follow up essays, and that Kripal has publicly stated he won't address additional points raised, helps explains why the controversy continues. I'm less concerned about this point, but I do think it helps to contextualize that part of the controversy.


 * By establishing those two points up front, I believe, helps to put all of the following opinions into a more neutral setting - without blame aimed at supporters or detractors of Kripal and his book.


 * I hope you can see the sense of this. Perhaps suggest your own wording, to make the points. Let's get a few more opinions, please. Best, Ellis408 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The lead already states Critics have argued that the book's conclusions were arrived at through mistranslation of Bengali. That suffices. The sentence you want to add does not adequately summarize the Wiki-article, nor the source. See also WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)