Talk:Ramakrishna/Archive 9

sexuality - fresh start
No comments about editors in this section please.

Gothean, please post the sources you want to add again, and tell us (in general) what they add to the article that you think is important. let's see if we can find a compromise. -- Ludwigs 2 18:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've placed an initial draft at User:Goethean/stubs/srk which summarizes the peer-reviwwed journal articles on Ramakrishna's sexuality. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the only thing that's really usable from that is the idea that RK had a somewhat different set of attitudes about sexuality (which is not unexpected, given that he was a celibate spiritualist dedicated to the cult of Kali), and that Vivekananda may have tried to clean up his image for western consumption. The problem with Sil and Kripal is that they are not very reliable: they are trying to do psychodynamic analyses of RK based on the writings of Vivekananda, while at the same time asserting that Vk was trying to expurgate RK's legacy - that's just not viable.  The rest strikes me as off-kilter: there are no instances of RK engaging in overt homosexual acts (and people do love to catch Hindu gurus in sexual improprieties), there's only one story I know of where he cross-dressed (as a child, on a dare, to prove he could sneak into the women's quarters), everyone celibate is likely to be seen as ambivalent towards women (celibates who aren't ambivalent don't last long as celibates)... Basically what you have is a couple of Freudian-tranied scholars noting that RK (i) didn't sleep with women (ii) hung out with youthful guys, and (iii) had a disregard for social conventions, and asserting from that that there must be homoerotic tendencies and/or childhood trauma to explain all that; RK's followers will look at exactly the same facts and see (i) and (iii) as signs of spiritual liberation and (ii) as entirely conventional for a guru with disciples.  I mean, it would be one thing if Vk or some of the other disciples of RK had reported sexual weirdness or abuse, or if there was some report of some kind of childhood trauma (aside from the death of his father, which so far as I know was not unnatural or extremely traumatic), or some evidence of any sort which substantiated the kind of pie-eyed Freudianism that's being advanced here.  but as it stands it seems to be very much a fringe opinion: an extreme theory based on paltry and questionable evidence with little to no support in the mainstream academic community: the article just can't give it as much attention or space as you seem to want.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What we have are trained historians writing in peer-reviewed journals versus a rank amateur, i.e., you. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 00:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please, Gothean, I'm trying to work with you - don't resort to ad hominem arguments, because I'll only put up with them for so long. can you address the substance of what I said without making it personal that way?  -- Ludwigs 2  01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First, of all, it is you who personalized the debate by inserting your personal intuitions as the ultimate arbiter of reliability. To you, Sil and Kripal are unreliable because, on your view, they use an outmoded psychoanalytic method. But in the quoted paper, Sil does no such thing, and no one who had glanced at the paper for more than a second would claim that he had. Sadly, this means that you havent even examined my sources before making a decision to keep them out of the article. Sil does show &mdash; quite persuasively, if you will take the time to read it &mdash; that Vivekananda censored SRK's legacy heavily (and quite successfully, given the present conversation).
 * there's only one story I know of where he cross-dressed
 * Then your "knowledge" &mdash; from sources undisclosed &mdash; contradicts peer-reviewed research. Goldman says that SRK's desire to be a woman 'was one of the most noteworthy themes of SRK's life'. But you would rather that the article omits this fact, because you feel that academics are sex-obsessed and that their publications on SRK's sexuality are basically untrustworthy, and are best described as a "fringe theory".
 * What you really have an issue with is Wikipedia's WP:IRS poicy, from which I quote:
 * Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
 * I suggest that you take up this debate at the WP:IRS talk page, since that is the source of your irritation. I don't see much room for debate here. My proposed content uses far more reliable source material than any section of the currently existing article. But you oppose its inclusion, because you personally disagree with its contents. This is a striking example of putting the interests of the readers last. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 06:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Being reliable' does not imply that a source must be used - wp:UNDUE may apply and exclude even reliable material when it would serve to create an unbalanced misrepresentation of the material.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have access to SIl's full article - just the abstract, which doesn't mention homoeroticism at all, but focuses on Vivekananda's efforts to clean up RK's image, short of you providing a full-text version of the article for me to read, I have to assume that homoeroticism is not a major thesis in this article, and that my assessment of Sil's technique is accurate (since that's really the only way he could make any such claim)
 * I can read, so I know what you claim that Goldman says. But again, I don't have full access to the article (just to the abstract.  However, from the abstract I can tell that Goldman is a post-modern-ish academic dealing with gender issues, which makes it unlikely that he would make bald assertions of the sort that being made here.  I don't discount that behavior like that is part of RK's mythos - ramakrishnans seem to like repeating that story, as well as other stories about eccentric behavior (occasional bouts of public nudity, tendencies to break out dancing, oddness connected with mystical visions).  Post Goldman's text (at least a page or so around the place where he makes this comment).
 * I think this is a fringe theory because it has very little support amongst academics, and makes very polemic assertions on the basis of highly questionable analyses. You need to show me either that the assertions are no that polemic, or that the analyses offered are not as questionable as they seem to me.  -- Ludwigs 2  15:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwigs2, you can find the disputes around Sil's works in the analysis below. I can mail the Sil, Goldman article or other material you are interested in. (Feel free to share a (temporary) email id if interested). --TheMandarin (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, appreciate your initiative. Thanks. A quick comment on Goethean's draft: The material feels dated, and WP:CHERRY. Kelly Ann Raab seems to be misrepresented. Much of what needs to be said is already in the article. Detailed analysis later. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that goes without saying, doesn't it? You accuse me of misrepresenting sources every time that I offer a suggestion to the self-appointed owners of this page. But I guess I shouldn't blame you. That's just your job, isn't it? To make sure that the article does not under any circumstances discuss Ramakrishna's sexuality. Given this mandate, and the fact that my sources are unimpeachable, you are forced by your own agenda to claim that I misrepresent sources. And when I quote sources precisely, then those quotations have to have been taken out of context. It's a priori. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 06:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Much of what needs to be said is already in the article.
 * But there's not a whisper of it in the section marked "biography". Why not? Is Ramakrishna's sexuality part of Ramakrishna's biography? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 07:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * See my analysis below, before you accuse me of bad-faith every-time. --TheMandarin (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your "analysis" does not justify the removal of the entire section. Please improve the section rather than removing it entirely. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that we are in between a discussion; I am sure each side will have its proposals later on. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 06:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Analysis
Goethean added this new section, few things to ponder:
 * First, its imp to note that there is already a section : Ramakrishna. Another section on sexuality with similar sources is clearly WP:UNDUE
 * The sources fall in the period of 1983 & 1993-1998, just a small period and does not encompass the vast amount of scholarly views put forth later on, including the recent 2010 book Interpreting Ramakrishna on which a panel discussion was held at 2010 American Academy of Religion conference. see : and http://www.danam-web.org/DANAM%202010/DANAM%202010%20Draft%20Agenda%20for%20website%20[4].pdf

WP:IRS specifically tells :  ( Emphasis added )

Before we begin, its easy to note that material has speculation and innuendo: "apparent homoeroticism..." , "may have masked homosexual..", "perhaps related to sexual trauma..." ( further analysis below ) On the other hand, the word usage fails WP:NPOV, "notes", "found" which promote a POV. See : WP:SAY.

Other scholarly views to consider on the works cited:

The cited PhD dissertation is unpublished, and WP policy talks about published material, if you have secondary source pls use them. McLean's thesis has been disputed in the Interpreting Ramakrishna pp.75-80 However, McLean's name can merged with the discussion on this interpretation of "attitude towards women" already present in the article.
 * Malcolm McLean

Narasingha Sil's writing of "apparent homoeroticism..." is heavily disputed. A quick look what others have written on Narasingha Sil's works (already referenced in the article):
 * Narasingha Sil
 * William Radice writes, "What makes one ultimately distrustful of his book, entertaining though it is, is his willingness to manipulate his sources" and "If Sil can misuse Vivekananda's writings to support his hypothesis, can we trust him to use the Kathamrta fairly"
 * Jean Openshaw of Open University writing, " Apart from the compulsions of contemporary academic life, this sleight of hand should perhaps be seen in the light of the furore caused in India by another psychoanalytically based book, Kali's Child ...", "..heady mix of tendentious argument, speculation and innuendo." ( she also discusses "Vivekananda's Ramakrishna" )Crucifying a Saint-Times Higher Education
 * Gwilymm Beckerlegge of Open University questioning Sil, "Sil casts himself as an intrepid and fearless historian, offering the first detailed psychobiograpy of Ramakrishna, although the reader is left feeling that Sil's own admitted disenchantment with 'godmen' colours his work."( The Ramakrishna Mission, Oxford University Press, 2000, pp.40-41 )
 * Tyagananda & Vrajaprana make interesting points, apart from disputing the psychoanalytical interpretations, they write that Sil "consistently uses a catch-all approach, replete with the habitual usage of "possibly," "quite probably", "most likely", "most probably," while suggesting highly sexualized scenarios without providing corroborating data to back up his theses... ex: "hemp-smoking sadhus" whose potential actions "could very well lead to his physical abuse"..."( Interpreting Ramakrishna, 2010, pp.88-90)

Raab has be misrepresented by partially quoting her speculative arguments on p.333, where she is merely stating the doubts. The actual conclusion is to be found later on p.338, where she states the contrary--"In this essay, I have offered an example of the creative and transformative effects of Ramakrishna'vs isions on his subsequent spiritual insights and behavior. Through exploration of philosophical understandings of his devotional mysticism and tantric underpinnings, I have shown how Ramakrishna's visions and behavior were in keeping with his culture and tradition. Coupled with a psychological analysis of his behavior as an internalization of Kali, I have demonstrated that in dressing as and imitating a woman, Ramakrishna broke through dualistic thought patterns defining gender, humanity, and God; at the same time he retained dualism to the extent that his devotions to Kali were as a child to his mother, he experienced her in various forms, and he retained his anatomical maleness. This behavior in turn expressed the spiritual insight found in his writings that dualism, qualified monism, and absolute monism are all aspects of and paths to truth."
 * Kelly Ann Raab

Oslon's psychoanalytical book has been characterized as "applied psychopathology and cultural misinterpretation...the author seems blind to the fact that the Bengali cultural heritage is radically different from the Euro-AMerican model and there has to be assessed on its own terms...". (Interpreting Ramakrishna, 2010 pp.80-83), which needs to be discussed as well per WP:NPOV. Amiya Prosad Sen writes opposite to that of Oslon in ( Three Essays on Ramakrishna IIAS 2001 p.126 )--"Bhadralok biographers or devotes of Ramakrishna were not always shamefaced about the saint's association with Tantra..." [Sen (2001), p.126] Tyagananda and Vrajaprana in 2010 Interpreting Ramakrishna write--"Olson's essay "Vivekananda and Ramakrsna Face to Face"...places blame squarely on Vivekananda for allegedly expunging certain events from his portrait of Ramakrishna. Olson makes this astonishing claim based upon Kripal's speculations in Kali's Child, which are unsupported by any of the source tests. For Olson, this lack of evidence does not point to the questionable nature of Kripal's conjectures, ... That there is no evidence for this suppression other than the claims made in Kali's Child does not seem to have disturbed Olson."(p.172) But such lengthy discussion are not a part of Biography.
 * Oslon

There is reference to a 1994 journal, not even the 1998 edition. The 1995,1998 book has the 1994 journal as a chapter + some alleged corrections still under dispute. I suppose the 1998 edition is already referenced in the article and Kripal's views are already discussed here
 * Kripal

This journal is 1997, before the second edition, already present here. There we important views proposed later, by John Hawley :, S.N. Balagangadhara :
 * Atmajnananda

I dont think Goldman's psychoanalytical essay deserves a special mention in the Biography and may be, belongs to Psychoanalysis and Sexuality section
 * Goldman

We see several scholars raise serious doubts on psychoanalysis:
 * Gayatri Spivak in Other Asias (2006) p.197 she writes Freud as "occupational hazard of psychoanalytical cultural criticism."
 * Renuka Sharma, of University of Melbourne and a psychoanalyistwrites (2001), " A strange motley of scholars in North America invariably jump to the defence of the author on rather spurious grounds. Among the reasons advanced are: the inexorability of the connection between 'sexuality and spirituality' ... the need to use the new-found strategic template of psychoanalysis ... and the as-it-were constitutional right of the outsider-scholar to interrogate the workings of (an)other's cultural productions....The imperialistic use of some outdated dogmas of psychoanalysis perpetuates a kind of psycho-orientalism that, indeed, Indian feminists such as Tanikar Sarkar, Kumkum Sangari, and Gayatri Spivak argue are a construct of masculinity as a well-known colonial ruse, as is the feminization of poverty and the infantilization of so-called primitive peoples. From Ramakrishna to the 'brown boy, Gandhi', threatening Indian icons stand 'elfeminized' and turned into 'intimate enemies', reinforcing the ambiguities and ambivalences of the post-colonial purloined self....The question of the relevance of psychoanalysis to race and cultural issues is an old one. However, there has been a recent acceleration of pace in discussions around this area. From the vantage of a psychoanalytic-trained psychiatrist, I am able to observe that the growing reflection from within psychoanalysis of its own doubtful status as a science" (emphasis added.) She goes on talks about "1920s and 1940s was the universalizing tendency of psychoanalysis." ( emphasis added )
 * Rajat Kanta Ray writes, "...his psychoanalytical proceedings with the text, without the verifications psychoanalysts derive from patients under the ’free-association method’, fills me with doubt, especially as regards his identifications of some Tantrik symbols. Psychoanalysts let patients talk free, and follow the links from one thing to another, in order to be certain that they interpret the symbols correctly. The free-association method is not possible with a text like the Kathamrita, so one must be sure that the identifications are generally accepted in the given culture."

WP:IRS specifically tells :  ( Emphasis added ) I have above cited some of the recent material from 1997-2010 and its easy to see that how the landscape and views change. Going by Renuka Sharma, one of those "strange motley" scholar who would later change is view is John Hawley in his 2004 journal. We need to give importance to this aspect of changing scholarly consensus especially in the wake of Panel discussions on interpreting Ramakrishna was being held as recent as in 2010 American Academy of Religion conference around 2-3 months back.

An alternative look at Jesus whose sexuality has been debated ( and also termed as homosexual like Ramakrishna by Kripal in Serpent's Gift ) does not contain a dedicated section on sexuality at all in the main biography. The best way to go would be to discuss each of the scholar + associated alternative disputed views of other scholars, so that the reader is presented with the complete picture,--but for that biography is not the place. Some can go in the section Ramakrishna and a detailed discussion can be carried in related articles like Views on Ramakrishna.

Would ask Goethean to take seek RFC or discuss this at a appropriate noticeboard, before adding partial views --TheMandarin (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Most of the rationales for the recent section blanking here are obviously false. The material is not undue, it simply reviews that peer-reviewed scholarly material on SRK's sexuality, a section which is curiously missing from his biography. McLean's dissertation is indeed published, you may obtain it from the University for a fee, it also is housed in a library. regarding datedness: I reviewed all of the scholarly peer-reviewed material that I could find, even when I disagree with it. If you find more recent articles, you are free to add to the article rather than blanking the section yet again. Scholars are free to speculate and their speculations are relevant when published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. It doesn't matter that Sil's view is disputed; it's still his view, and clearly attributed as such, and notable and appropriate to the article. You are quoting Openshaw on a book by Sil, not on the article that I cite. You comments on Raab are clearly false: no competent scholar would say the direct opposite of what she means, and that is what you claim --- that she didn't really mean what she said. Let's assume that she's competent, shall we? Nobody cares that Olsen's book has been criticized; am referencing a peer-reviewed academic journal article, and per WP:IRS, it is among the most reliable sources. The rest of this article (the parts that you wrote) uses much poorer sourcing. But Ludwig2 choose to blank the section that has the best sourcing. Kripal --- your objection is irrelevant. Kripal's 1994 views are citable; if you have something more recent to update it with, go ahead rather than blanking the best-sourcedsection in the article. If you want to cite Hawley, you go right ahead. Swami Atmanawhatever's views are usable. Why would Goldman's work not be usable in Ramakrishna's biography? It is a peer-reviewed academic journal aryticle, a more reliable source than anything you've used. But you remove it anyways. Feel free to cite your scholars who raise doubts about psychoanalysis, but please make sure that it is from peer-reviewed material. And you still haven't answered my question as to why there is no sexuality section in Ramakrishna's biography. Is Ramakrishna's sexuality part of his biography? As has been demonstrated, there is no lack of reliably-sourced material discussing it. But the section has been blanked again. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ludwigs2 did not "blank the section" with bad-faith/vandalism, he is trying to workout a compromise, esp when the material is in draft, WP:CHERRY., I am sure Ludwigs2 will restore the appropriate material later when a agreement is reached. Adding pieces of speculation while leaving Raab's material under "Conclusion" is clearly misleading. Reg Sil, Oslon WP:IRS is clear, "However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." Reread my analysis, I didn't say Roldman's material is unusable, as with several other sources, most of which is already present. They are usable with due weight age and with neutral wording. I guess we are heading towards RFC → mediation → possibly ARBCOM too., --TheMandarin (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I doubt it. If Gothean doesn't stop this kind of behavior I'm simply going to open a thread over at wp:AN asking for community support to topic ban him.  I mean seriously - I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but not if he keeps making things personal and engaging in tendentious edits to mainspace.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of another sexuality section - Request for Comment
This article already has a section on Psychoanalysis and Sexuality. Is another section on Sexuality in the biography required? --TheMandarin (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments;
 * As I have explained above, I don't believe the current mainstream view will be accurately reflected through inclusion of a separate section in the biography on "sexuality". I feel that the current mainstream view will be accurately represented by the inclusion of a discussion of various scholars' views on Ramakrishna's sexuality in a section devoted to contemporary scholarship, as is presently done in the article. Devadaru (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article as it stands is not neutral. However, I have been kept from placing a POV template at the top of the article due to a combination of edit warring and threats by my opponents. The current organization, including the "Views and studies" section and the "Psychoanalysis and Sexuality", de-legitimizes scholarly work on Ramakrishna and features more prominently the work that aligns with the doctrines of the Ramakrishna Mission. It also removes any mention of Ramakrishna's sexuality from the main "Biography" section, relegating it to merely "Views". The sections should be integrated. The entire biography should be based on the work of contemporary scholars, religious as well as secular, and should be sourced to reliable sources, i.e., academic journal articles, which, as I have demonstrated, have had a lively debate over the teachings and life of Ramakrishna. This debate is missing from the Ramakrishna biography section. My opponents have produced a rationale to remove immediately every mention of Ramakrishna's sexuality that I have added to the biography section of the article. Their repeated actions flagrantly violate the Wikipedia core principle of NPOV. Highly reliable sources refer to Ramakrishna's interesting sexuality as one of the most prominent themes of his life. The article should reflect these reliable sources. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 18:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Introducing another section on Sexuality into the main biography—essentially leaves two sections on Sexuality in the same article with similar material. This is clearly WP:UNDUE A walk-through of the reputable encyclopedias : Britannica, Springer Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion pp.753-754 , Gale's Encyclopedia of Religion ( Vol.11, pp.7611-7614 ) shows that the authors do not discuss Sexuality in the Biography. Gale's encyclopedia in particular has a dedicated section "Interpretations of Ramakrishna" to discuss sexuality, etc., A comparison with Jesus—whose sexuality has also been debated by scholars, including Kripal who alleges that Jesus is a homosexual in Serpent's Gift—reveals no dedicated section on sexuality in the biography. The "Highly reliable sources" you write come from 1993-1998 and are WP:CHERRY that promote a single view, there are more contrasting scholarly views later on as per my Talk:Ramakrishna and per WP:IRS,"However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." While some material can be merged with existing section, the rest is superfluous--TheMandarin (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sexuality of Jesus &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, but my question is this, has it been linked from the main biography? It has been linked from Jesus → Views on Jesus. Clearly its been linked from the views section. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the main biographical document on Jesus &mdash; the Bible &mdash; doesn't discuss his sexuality, whereas reliable sources say that the erotic content of Ramakrishna's visions is one of the most prominent features of his life. Unfortunately, these reliable sources have been suppressed from the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scholars don't agree with that, nor is there any academic consensus on what you speculate above. For ex, Radice disputes this in Kripal's review, "The erotic-Tantric lens is not the only one through which the Kathamrta can be read". Even Amiya Sen writes on similar lines. On the other hand, we have scholars like June McDaniel who write that the deductions are based on the interpreter.( see June McDaniel's review of Kripal's another book ) --TheMandarin (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I claim that the erotic-tantric lens is the only one through which the Kathamrta can be read? No, I did not. What I said is that reliable sources treat Ramakrishna's sexuality as a prominent feature of his biography, and the Wikipedia article does not. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Had this been the case, the mainstream biographies in encyclopedia's from Brittanica, Gale, Springer I have listed above should have reflected this. I suggest you to have a look at them. --TheMandarin (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, this article does not need more on the sexuality of Ramakrishna. Jack B108 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The sexuality section in  is a non-neutral section that concentrates only the views supporting Ramkrishna's alleged homosexuality. The current section "Psychoanalysis and sexuality" balances the views of the academics, who support the theory as well as those who disregard it. Mainstream encyclopaedia articles on Ramakrishna do not focus extensively on sexuality. Another section on sexuality is clearly an WP:UNDUE.-- Redtigerxyz  Talk 08:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Including even one more section, in addition to what's already present, would be too much, and undue. Biographical articles must focus on a person's work and what he/she is known for, not an obsessive level of detail on some fringe issue. Shreevatsa (talk) 15:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, another section on sexuality is not required. In India and Hinduism, Ramakrishna is known prominently for many other things; dwelling so much on the sexuality of a spiritual person of Hinduism would be giving in to the documented and well-known eurocentric bias that exists on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

RFC outcome
From the RFC, 6 editors have suggested that another section on sexuality not necessary. If Goethean wants he can proceed with the next steps of WP:DR. Going back to this edit I have few comments:
 * According to Gwilym Beckerlegge ( 2000 "Bibliograpy" p.209) and Tyagananda ( 2010 ), Malcolm McLean's Phd is unpublished. If you want to cite him, use a secondary source.
 * Raab's journal is already present and also Raab has been misquoted, while she is merely stating the arguments and the conclusion is different.
 * Sil, Kripal, Atmajnananada, Alan Roland : alreay mentioned. I also don't think we can give undue weightage to Sil's speculative sentence, disputed by several scholars listed above and also refer to Devadaru's reference desk discussion above.
 * Goldman has be added, and also Oslon, with the other view that oslon bases his study on Kripal, for which there is no textual proof.

--TheMandarin (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding Audio Pronunciation Of Ramakrishna Paramhansha's Name
I have added audio pronunciation of Ramakrishna Paramhansha's name. Thanks! --Tito Dutta (Talk) 06:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thakur Honors - Edit Undone
I have undone this edit. They wrote well in the synopsis- ''After studying books on Shri Ramakrishna, Devotees were used to call Shri Ramakrishna as 'Thakur' in respect. 'Paramhansa' is a spiritual stage that Shri Ramakrishna achieved. So Shri Ramakrishna's honourable name was 'Thakur'.'' But, they did not provide the name (source) of the book. So, the edit was unreferenced. I have undone it. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 03:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The scholarly claims having been forcibly removed by devotees, the entire article is completely hagiographical and poorly sourced so you might as well leave it in. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have received an email from them with some arguments. I have asked them to post it again in Talk Page. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 22:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply. Regarding proof for "Thakur"(Honorable name of Shri Ramakrishna), There are many books in which you will notify this thing. You can refer book "Shri Shri Ramkrishna Kathamrita" (Ref 84 - already given). Open any part of this book and just search for "Thakur", You will come to know that everyone used to call Shri Ramkrishna as "Thakur" with love and honor. "Paramahansa" is a stage in spiritual life that he has achieved by yoga. so there are many paramahansa, like Paramahansa Yogananda and many others. Paramahansa means "supreme swan" and is a title indicating the highest spiritual attainment. (According to wikipedia on Paramahansa Yogananda). So request you to please change the honor name to "Thakur" asap. If you need more explanation please tell me --Ankit Shah —Preceding comment added 19:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

So, anybody having doubt? Can I change Shri Ramkrishna's honorable name to 'Thakur'? --Ankit Shah (Send me a message) 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No. It is not recommended to use Sri, Dr., Sir, Thakur etc., See MOS:HONORIFIC. --TheMandarin (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the meaningless words "Located far from the railroad,"
I changed the line below because there were no railroads in India in 1836 when Ramakrishna was born. The first were built about 1850, and he left the village in 1853, so saying there were no railroads near it is meaningless.

I just deleted the words "Located far from the railroad,"

Ramakrishna was born on 18 February 1836, in the village of Kamarpukur, in the Hooghly district of West Bengal, into a very poor but pious, orthodox brahmin family. Located far from the railroad, Kamarpukur was untouched by the glamour of the city and contained rice fields, tall palms, royal banyans, a few lakes, and two cremation grounds.


 * Unsurprising, considering that the entire article is inaccurate, anti-historical hagiography. &mdash; goethean 17:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

J. Kripal
I think there is undue weight to this author on this Biography page -- in fact an entire section for his viewpoint and then the counter views. He has written: ''When Swami Atmajnanananda advanced his textual criticisms, I publicly apologized for my mistakes, thanked Swamiji, and corrected them in the second edition. When Swami Tyagananda published his extensive rebuttal, I openly acknowledged the corrections that I considered legitimate, publicly apologized for them both on a Harvard Divinity School web-site and later in a prominent Indian journal, and promised to correct them in any future edition.'' Does any one know what was the discussion between them?

On a lighter note, this definitely does not deserve a mention: Question: "You mentioned in your professional bio that opened this website that you think you may be Spider-Man. Are you sure about this?" Answer: "I'm pretty sure." Jyoti (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There are 12 mention of "Kripal" in the article (not in reference but directly in the article). And as stated above his rendering is controversial. I am cleaning up as per WP:UNDUE. Jyoti (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Goethean, can you please provide your rationale for this revert, the edit summary did not have any note. What I am thinking is: 1. This referenced book is highly controversial, the author has apologized on selected criticism and also made corrections in his second edition and promised to make further corrections in future editions. (From here). 2. This is the only book presenting the view in contention which has been specifically criticized and there are several other books which maintain the other view which is undoubtedly the most commonly accepted interpretation. The interpretation from this controversial book has been given undue weight here and deserves removal. You may find three independent reliable reference for the commonly accepted interpretation here. Jyoti (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you even read the article?? The article mentions numerous scholars which agree with Kripal. &mdash; goethean 12:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have. I have presented my point, could you please respond directly and specifically to what I have presented. WP:UNDUE. Jyoti (talk) 14:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I already have. Numerous scholars, including Kripal, interpret Ramakrishna as a sexual human being rather than as a desexualized object of puritanical and hagiographical imagination. Some of these scholars are cited in the article. Thus your claim This is the only book presenting the view in contention is false. &mdash; goethean 15:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Kindly limit this discussion to the revert under question. It concerns interpretation of "lover-and-gold" and I see only one book. Jyoti (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Jyoti.mickey : The para in question presents perspectives from different authors, and Kripal's perspective seems fine to me, even though I think it digresses into translation arguments. Controversial, but still a WP:RS in Wikipedia and there are numerous other WP:RSes which dispute this. The part in question has both these elements. --TheMandarin (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think in the given context it is WP:UNDUE. Kamini-Kanchan is a common phrase, it has a widely accepted interpretation as discussed here. To top it the book is controversial and we don't even know what corrective edits Kripal intended to make in a future edition. Jyoti (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I will undo the revert under question. It concerns interpretation of "lover-and-gold". Jyoti (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Jyoti (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you desist from removing well-sourced material from the article. &mdash; goethean 14:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not contending the source, my argument is of WP:UNDUE and the edit is regarding interpretation of lover and gold. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Jyoti (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your contention has exactly zero merit. Kripal is the most prominent contemporary scholar on Ramakrishna. To omit his interpretation would be fraudulent. &mdash; goethean 16:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You are merely insisting, WP:REHASH. Kripal's interpretation is WP:UNDUE. The phrase has a widely accepted interpretation as discussed here, and here -- You may find four independent scholarly WP:RS right away! Jyoti (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You have failed to make a single remotely cogent argument for your proposed edit. Instead you have edit warred for a proposal which does not have talk page consensus, and then accused me on my talk page of edit warring. Like you, I can cite completely irrelevant Wikipedia policies, but I guess I don't see the point. &mdash; goethean 16:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:AOTE and follow WP:FOC. You have reverted thrice while I see only WP:REHASH on your part. Jyoti (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Goethean, you have reverted 4 times: 1, 2, 3, 4. 2 of them did not have edit summary either. Please back your argument, I do not buy your view "Kripal is the most prominent contemporary scholar on Ramakrishna. To omit his interpretation would be fraudulent.". 'consensus' does not require me to get your approval. Jyoti (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you re-read the policy you are referencing, because it supports my case, not yours. It doesn't say to ignore everyone at the talk page and do whatever you want in conflict with consensus, which is exactly what you are doing. I suggest that you stop revert warring in violation of talk page consensus. &mdash; goethean 14:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please respond to the content revert? Jyoti (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Just look at how many responses there have been in this thread. You won't listen. I can't do anything about that. &mdash; goethean 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See I do agree that Kripal has a view and there is a reference for it. That is not what I am challenging. I am saying the phrase has an overwhelmingly common interpretation and Kripal's interpretation is getting overdue weight! Only you have responded once to it insisting that Kripal is very important author, which in my view is not a satisfactory reply. Jyoti (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I find it difficult to agree that two sentences that are sourced can be considered Undue, especially if Kripal is a well known scholar on this article's topic. However, as the statement does seem to be making an implied accusation of homosexuality (with some negativity attached to the implication by my reading) it would perhaps be beneficial to add a quote either in the text, or as part of the citation that more directly backs that statement. Regarding Jyoti's argument about Kripal recanting his arguments - one would need to show that that recantation specifically applied to this statement not just that he had changed arguments about some unspecified things. If there are other well known interpretations of the phrase (as Jyoti has already linked to), they can be added here to further balance this interpretation. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Kripal's interpretation is WP:UNDUE. There is a commonly accepted interpretation with multiple scholarly WP:RS. Jyoti (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV explicitly states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." It does not say "Exclude opinions of experts on the topic who have a minority opinion on a specific detail." As I said, add the other interpretations to give balance to this one, but removing it completely is not within policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am primarily saying WP:UNDUE not exactly WP:POV. Quoting from the link you presented: 1. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. 2. Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Jyoti (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please show how is this individual interpretation of Kripal prominent enough for inclusion when there are several (at least four) scholarly WP:RS that establishes the common interpretation. Repeating your opinion that Kripal is scholar is not sufficient. I have reverted, I would gladly undo if you can establish your point with discussion. In case of repeated revert without meaningful discussion I would consider WP:AN3. Jyoti (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment : I had edited this article months ago, and today I saw that it has been brought to WP:ANEW. I think that may have tried to make this page look less of a fan page. Page looks interesting, I don't think that there is any undue weight. There should be no particular objection as long as Kripal has been a huge researcher and writer concerning this subject. If  has better interpretation it can be attributed well, just like  has put.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 01:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

New Book - Jibanbrittanta translation
For your information: Advaita Ashrama just released an English translation of Ram Chandra Datta's biography. link Devadaru (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Ramakrishna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100611020237/http://www.encyclopedia.com:80/doc/1P1-3127993.html to http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P1-3127993.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120428202112/http://www.articlearchives.com/humanities-social-science/religion/1048640-1.html to http://www.articlearchives.com/humanities-social-science/religion/1048640-1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics
I reverted 5 of your edits that introduced honorifics calling them "unexplained and unsourced." While you reinstated your edit, you still haven't provided any explanations or sources. Are you aware of WP:Honorific? Instead of edit-warring, please engage in talk page discussion to arrive at consensus. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have given ample references in support of my edits. Are you well aware of that? - SWASTIK 25 (talk) 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your cites from the devotees/followers. They don't meet the requirement "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it." - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact, neutral third-party sources rarely attach "Sri", even though they use "Paramahamsa" . - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Always a delicate business, these Indian honorifics. "Swami Vivekananda" is contested on a regular base; "Bhagavad Sri Ramana Maharshi" is over the top, of course, though "Ramana Maharshi" is accepted. While "Sri Ramakrishna" does not seem to be the commonname. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bad faith edits
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

In my opinion following edits to Ramakrishna are not constructive and should be removed. These are not good faith edits.

In Ramakrishna: Kingcircle (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "In 1995, Jeffrey J. Kripal argued in Kali's Child that the Ramakrishna Movement had manipulated Ramakrishna's biographical documents, that the Movement had published them in incomplete and bowdlerised editions (claiming among other things, hiding Ramakrishna's homoerotic tendencies),"
 * "Narasingha Sil,[119] Jeffrey Kripal,[120] and Sudhir Kakar,[121] analyse Ramakrishna's mysticism and religious practices using psychoanalysis,[122] arguing that his mystical visions, refusal to comply with ritual copulation in Tantra, Madhura Bhava, and criticism of Kamini-Kanchana (women and gold) reflect homosexuality. Jeffrey Kripal's controversial[123] Kali's Child: The Mystical and the Erotic in the Life and Teachings of Ramakrishna (1995) argued that Ramakrishna rejected Advaita Vedanta in favour of Shakti Tantra.[124] In this psychoanalytic study of Ramakrishna's life, Kripal argued that Ramakrishna's mystical experiences were symptoms of repressed homoeroticism.[125]"

End of copied part


 * "Good faith" revers to the behaviour of editors, not the contents of the article. I understand you point, but...
 * This info is from a reliable, though controversial source;
 * The info is attributed;
 * The controverse drew a lot of attention, and therefor is relevant ot mention;
 * Various point of views are given, including critic of Kripal.
 * Ergo, there is no chance that this info will be removed, I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 4 january 2016

I agree with Jyoti that J. Kripal case is WP:UNDUE. When Incarnation is born on earth, he brings his followers with him and also few villains to enact his divine play. No matter what these villains do to pull him down, they only end up glorifying him. In case of Jesus we had Caiaphas, Judas, Pilate and later Paul who was transformed into Saint. The story of Ramakrishna tells about his nephew priest Haladhari, Kalighat priest Haldar and Hazara Mahashay. And now I hear about J. Kripal. I tried to keep his name out of the list, but it looks like his fate is sealed. Kingcircle (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Greetings. My reverted edits to Ramakrishna should be reinstated on following grounds. If you disagree, let me know why.
 * 1. My edit made to Ramakrishna is constructive because if it was not so, Prabuddha Bharata which is published by Ramakrishna Mission would not have published the article Advaita Vedanta and the Big Bang.
 * 2. The Big Bang: Theory, Assumptions and Problems is a book with two editors. Cited article is one of the twelve chapters by different authors in the book. This chapter can be downloaded for free from ResearchGate: Consciousness and energy
 * 3. All twelve chapters are listed on the publishers web site. So this book is like a secondary source. References 9 in this article is like the primary source.
 * 4. V. H. Zaveri, Periodic relativity: basic framework of the theory. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. v.42, No.6, 1345--1374, (2010).
 * 5. Two editors of the Nova book looked at this article and then invited the author to contribute a chapter for Nova book. Therefore my edit to Ramakrishna is not unsourced. The original research is given in Ref.(9), therefore WP:OR does not apply. The material described in my edit is from following two books which are being published for more than 100 years now, with millions of copies sold. Therefore my edit is not WP:UNDUE.
 * Sri Ramakrisha The Great Master by Swami Saradananda, (tr.) Swami Jagadananda.
 * The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna by Mahendranath Gupta, (tr.) Swami Nikhilananda.
 * Above books available across the world at Vedanta Society bookstores.

Kingcircle (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

End of copied part


 * If the emphasis is on Ramakrishna's teachings, then there are several problems:
 * It should be in the Teachings-section, or in the Teachings of Ramakrishna article; not in this section;
 * It should be shortened, and checked for its accuracy:
 * ''"Ramakrishna considered the Universe as waves arising from the Great Ocean (Brahman of Advaita Vedanta)(check?!?). According to Ramakrishna, Brahman and Sakti (Prakriti, energy)(check?!?) are identical. When thought of as inactive, He is called Brahman, and when thought of as active, the creator, preserver and destroyer, She is called Primordial Energy."'
 * If the emphasis is on "Vikram Zaveri explains that this improved version of Advaita Vedanta solves some major problems in the big bang cosmology in explaining the presence of consciousness in the universe, the origin of energy and the relation between the two", then there are several problems:
 * Vikram Zaveri is an "independent researcher"; that is, not WP:RS.
 * It's WP:UNDUE.
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Some more comments:
 * The Prabuddha Bharata article contains only one Ramakrishna-quote:
 * "Sri Ramakrishna says: ‘The jnani, sticking to the path of knowledge, always reasons about the Reality, saying, “Not this, Not this”. Brahman is neither “this” nor “that”.’"
 * Not a valid source for the info you want to add.
 * The Big Bang: Theory, Assumptions and Problems does not have a preview at Google; the source can't be checked.
 * ResearchGate does contain an article by Zaveri though, also with the title Consciousness and energy. No reference to Ramakrishna in this article.
 * That article looks like, ehm, not being representative of mainstream-theories on the Big Bang Theory...
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The emphasis is on both, Ramakrishna's teachings as well the explanation of Vikram Zaveri, but Teachings-section is fine. We can add one more reference for following quote from abridged Gospel, Introduction - page 54.
 * "When Sri Ramakrishna thought of the Supreme Being as inactive--neither creating nor preserving nor destroying--He called Him Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal God. When he thought of Him as active--creating, preserving and destroying--he called Him Sakti or Maya or Prakriti, the Personal God."

The same thing is also explained in the Prabuddha Bharata article on page 35 at the beginning of the last paragraph before Notes and References:
 * "When the infinite motionless Consciousness becomes active—creating, preserving, and destroying—it acts like energy; when it remains inactive, it becomes the Unmanifest."

Therefore this is a valid source for the info I want to add. Beyond this if we change anything from my original edit, the whole thing may get distorted. Therefore best thing is to either accept the original edit with some modifications or drop the idea for now. Kingcircle (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems to be valid info to me (Ramakrishna's views on Brahman/shakti), but it might be good to contextualize it a little bit. It's different from Advaita Vedanta, and closer to Tantra. That's relevant, because Vivekananda, while praising Ramakrishna, endorsed Advaita Vedanta, while he actually seems to have been closer to Tantra and bedhabedha than to Advaita Vedanta. But maybe that's too technical for the average reader? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ramakrishna has not deviated from Advaita Vedanta. This is clear from the next sentence of the same quote on page 54 of the abridged Gospel:
 * "But the distinction between them does not mean a difference. The Personal and Impersonal are the same thing, like milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its lustre, the snake and its wriggling motion. It is impossible to conceive of the one without the other. The Divine Mother and Brahman are one."

It differs from Advaita Vedanta in calling Prakriti as energy (Sakti) which definition comes from Tantra. Advaita Vedanta of Sankaracharya does not recognize energy as real because it is Maya (illusion) for them. But Ramakrishna describes both Brahman and Sakti as real. Sakti comes into existence when motionless Brahman begins to move. When Sakti stops moving it becomes Brahman again. Same thing is spoken in Bhagavad Gita verses (2.24) and (13.15). Now energy (Sakti) and Motion are central to Physics. Therefore Ramakrishna's definition is the only one that can be related to Physics. Neither Sankaracharya nor any of the supporters of Bhedabheda speak about energy or motion. They are only concerned about individual soul and the Brahman.Kingcircle (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (I've taken the liberty to copy-edit your response, to clearly distinguish the quote. I've also added a break, to distinguish the two sub-topics.)
 * Well, it's an interesting topic. Your main point seems to be to realte Ramakrishna to physics. Again, I'm not sure if this article is the proper place for such contributions.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding relating Ramakrishna to physics, there is a comment in another article by Vikram Zaveri (Unified Field of Consciousness) which is "there is no clear line of demarcation between the material energy and the spiritual energy." For example, human thought is sort of spiritual energy but the sound wave is a physical energy. When a person speaks, his thoughts are translated into sound and other physical actions. Let me organise what we have discussed so far and put up an edit in the Teaching section and then we go from there. Kingcircle (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Introduction to quotes
Dear Joshua: Your latest edited version has mistakes.

"Ramakrishna's Tantric views were influenced by Totapuri's Advaita Vedanta lessons, integrating both world-views into a dynamic whole:" is a completely wrong heading for the quote.

The original heading in the Gospel is: "Ramakrishna later described the significance of Totapuri's lesson:"

Explanation: Here the lesson is not by Totapuri to Ramakrishna but by Divine Mother to Totapuri. This incident is described in The Great Master. So the way reference was introduced in my original write up was correct. But the way you have introduced [86] is wrong. Both the quotes are in Gospel [87]. Actually the first quotation is what Ramakrishna taught his own Guru Totapuri but your heading says exactly opposite. Kingcircle (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But it is totally inclear from this sentence what the context is, or what "Totapuri's lesson" refers to. The quote needs a clearer introduction.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read the preceding text in The Great Master; I think I'm correct here. Totapuri introduced Ramakrishna to Advaita vedanta and nirvikalpa samadhi. At first, Ramakrishna wasn't able to reach nirvikalpa samadhi, because the Great Mother appeared again and again:
 * "But the radiant and too familiar figure of the Blissful Mother, the Embodiment of the essence of Pure Consciousness, appeared before me as a living reality. Her bewitching smile prevented me from passing into the Great Beyond. Again and again I tried, but She stood in my way every time." 
 * But within three days he succeeded. The author then describes the influence of this realisation on Ramakrishna. For Totapuri, the world is maya, illusion. Ramakrishna "acknowledged its power in the relative life" . The author then states:
 * "after nirvikalpa samadhi, Sri Ramakrishna realized maya in an altogether new role. The binding aspect of Kali vanished from before his vision. She no longer obscured his understanding. The world became the glorious manifestation of the Divine Mother. Maya became Brahman. The Transcendental Itself broke through the Immanent. Sri Ramakrishna discovered that maya operates in the relative world in two ways, and he termed these "avidyamaya" and "vidyamaya"." 
 * Ramakrishna integrated Absolute and relative:
 * "The Divine Mother asked Sri Ramakrishna not to be lost in the featureless Absolute but to remain, in bhavamukha, on the threshold of relative consciousness, the border line between the Absolute and the Relative. He was to keep himself at the "sixth centre" of Tantra, from which he could see not only the glory of the seventh, but also the divine manifestations of the Kundalini in the lower centres. He gently oscillated back and forth across the dividing line. Ecstatic devotion to the Divine Mother alternated with serene absorption in the Ocean of Absolute Unity. He thus bridged the gulf between the Personal and the Impersonal, the immanent and the transcendent aspects of Reality." 
 * After describing what Totapuri, in turn, learned from Ramakrishna, the author then states:
 * ''"Sri Ramakrishna later described the significance of Totapuri's lessons:
 * "When I think of the Supreme Being as inactive — neither creating nor preserving nor destroying —, I call Him Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal God. When I think of Him as active — creating, preserving, and destroying —, I call Him Sakti or Maya or Prakriti, the Personal God. But the distinction between them does not mean a difference. The Personal and the Impersonal are the same thing, like milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its lustre, the snake and its wriggling motion. It is impossible to conceive of the one without the other. The Divine Mother and Brahman are one."" 
 * Actually, the author does not make clear what significance Ramakrishna describes in this quote; we have to deduce that ourselves. But if we link this qute to the preceding passages, it's clear that at first Totapuri and Ramakrishna had different views, but that Ramakrishna integrated both views in his experience - the transcendent and immanent, or the active and passive, et cetera. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You can get the clearer introduction from the preceding paragraphs of the Gospel which repeats in brief the detailed account of two incidents given in the Great Master(5th ed., v.1, pp.558-561). It starts on page 52 of Gospel under the heading Totapuri's Lesson. In short Toiapuri was a staunch Advaitin who dismiised the Mother Nature (Prakriti, Sakti, energy, Divine Mother, Mother Kali) as Maya (illusion), and not having a real existence. He considered Mother Kali as just a figment of imagination. So Divine Mother taught him a lesson that She was real and Totapuri was under her jurisdiction and unless she willed, Totapuri was not free even to die. Kingcircle (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If this quote is about Totapuri's lesson (singular), then it sould be under the Ramakrishna section. Now we are interpreting a primary source... Aren't there better, more academical, sources on Ramakrishna's teachings?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I have told you what is correct. Now you worry about the sections and primary sources and secondary sources and reliable sources and all that. I am out of it. Kingcircle (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)