Talk:Ramana Maharshi/Archive 1

Untitled
From an early paragraph of the current version of the article

In a flood of spiritual awareness he realized he was spirit, not his body.

I am no expert, but this sounds a bit misleading for an Advaita practicioner such as Ramana Maharishi. Makes him look like some reincarnationist. Luis Dantas 02:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

^He senses that everything is connected and he refers to that infinate connection as spirit.^

It is accurate with his biography, he reports an effortless spontanous enlightenment. Sethie 20:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

An interesting quote from Mouni Sadhu. "Sri Maharshi was not so happy about his place of residence, surrounded as he was, mostly by fanatical Hindus and neurotic Europeans and Americans, and once he even said that if he left and settled in any other place, people would still build another 'ashram' around him. "

Delisted GA
It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it does not cite any sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the template/block at the top of the page. I'm not expert in Wikipedia standards, but think it would be nice to see some inline references (though there seem to be many reference/links at the end of the page). It seems especially desirable to have careful scholarship in an article about a spiritual teacher. --baxrob 09:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of Ramana Maharshi article
I am in the process of cleaning up this article:

(1) Clearly distinguish Ramana school of teaching from the traditional Advaitic teaching

(2) Provide references to various sections

(3) Include a list of Ramana quotes --Naresh 09:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

As for #1, please provide sources that say he was different from traditional Advaitic teachings. As for #2 and #3- go for it! peace, Sethie 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I like what you are doing with the article, keep it up.

However, conclusions such as he WAS different, etc. you need a source for. Documenting ways that it APPEARS he is different is fine. Sethie 02:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have changed it to say, 'there are some differences', rather than making a strong statement which may not be in keeping with the tone of the encyclopedia.--Naresh 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks- I mean by all means if you find a source which says that are VERY different, cite it. I'd love to know that. Sethie 04:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does not provide enough background on Ramana's life. The idea that Ramana was some sort of silent mystic does not accurately reflect his later life. We ought to be able to take the material from the biographical link and summarize it. Nor does it really explain why he is so highly regarded today and what was unique about his approach. For that, contains a number of illuminating quotations and commentary. --Dseer 06:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sethie, as one who has done extensive studies on Sri Ramana among many other teachers, I have no objection to editing the quotes down some while still covering key points, but it was you yourself who commented above on (1) Sources clearly distinguishing Ramana school of teaching from the traditional Advaitic teaching; (2) Providing references to various sections and (3)) Including a list of Ramana quotes. And you said: "I mean by all means if you find a source which says that are VERY different, cite it. I'd love to know that."


 * As you are aware, "self enquiry" is Sri Ramana's signature teaching, and as you may not be aware from your questions, in the way he actually taught it, significantly different than traditional practices found in non-dualistic schools, and inconsistent with much of what is popularly believed he taught, which is often simplistically stated, and that assertion is reliably sourced. As the article states, even "Nan Yar?" required some editing by Sri Ramana to purge the misconceptions; and the book still reflected some of the tendencies of the one who Sri Ramana was talking to in the early 1900s, and in the translations to formalized english and how it is read today, some of the sense of what Ramana actually meant was obscured, according to more modern followers with access to a broader range of sources. Therefore, (1) clarifying how Sri Ramana actually thought about and recommended the practice for which he is best know is needed, and (2) addressing popular misconceptions about the practice, which warrants a significant portion of the article. David Godman's exceptional expertise on Sri Ramana and access to a large variety of archival materials not referenced before on the subject is widely recognized and acknowledged, therefore his definitive summary of these points which in the full text is linked to all the supporting quotes by Sri Ramana, should provide the framework for a summary of this signature practice. The other quote from Michael Langford demonstrates with Sri Ramana quotes how attention to the sense of Self and the Self being nothing but Pure Awareness, which is the essence of self enquiry as Sri Ramana described it, and could be considered an alternate way Ramana taught the practice. I agree this explanation of self enquiry does not have to be exhaustive and should refer to sources for more details, but the article should address in enough detail what self enquiry is and is not, and what practices are and are not, in Sri Ramana's view, and for that, it is useful to provide the key points of the sourced summary. It isn't just a simple as providing a few quotes here or there because otherwise key points are not considered, and any summary by editors would need to avoid OR. Since the article isn't that long, and the encyclopedia should be accurate, I suggest we can collaborate on this.


 * Also, the account of his experience at age 16 is summarized and does not accurately reflect his full statement on the event which can be sourced, a common practice which is another basis of misconceptions about the experience as he actually described it in his own words . I suggest you might want to read to put all this in context. In particular, note where it says: "When he described this event for his Telugu biographer, the pronoun 'I' never appeared. He said, 'The body lay on the ground, the limbs stretched themselves out,' and so on. That particular description really leaves the reader with the feeling that this event was utterly impersonal." This illustrates how in the translation to English itself and through our normal assumptions about being a pronoun "I" rather than a sense of being the Self as Awareness itself, it is easy to misinterpret what Sri Ramana describes happened as a mental process rather than an actual assertion of a hyper-intuitive leap into Self Realization, even if we have the full text, let alone only portions of it, without the kind of commentary Godman provides. Thus, we have to be sufficiently detailed to be precise and be aware of nuances that need clarification if NPOV is to be maintained. That is not to assert that Sri Ramana's statements are proven fact, which would be POV, but to factually present what he asserted as intended. --Dseer 02:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did ask for a source, and boy did you provide them! Just say a sentence or two about it. This is an encyclopedia, summarize KEY points from sources. WP:NOT clearly says WP is not a collection of quotes, nor is it an instruction manuel. Sethie 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course I realize this is an encyclopedia. Obviously, the quotes can be edited some with a little time, as I acknowledged this was a framework to provide more accurate information and correct significant problems with the article given the general stagnation here, but this was hardly a "collection of quotes", what they mean by that is an article that consists almost entirely of quotations, which this does not. Nor is this hardly an instruction manual, what they mean by that is an article that basically reads like a detailed instruction manual. It isn't very helpful or collaborative given the little you've been contributing here and having bailed from MMY and TM to not take a stab at working with the quotes and discussing improvements instead of just reverting. You are pushing these points without acknowledging that the prior article had sigificant defects that these quotes addressed, making reversion uncollaborative. The purpose of editing is to improve the article collaboratively based on contributions which may be initially bold.--Dseer 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Very poor biographical information
As previously stated, the existing biography is very poor, does not address much of his life after his early experience, and contains a number of factual errors, critical ommissions, and misleading inferrences about one of the most respected and influential non-dualist spiritual figures of the modern era along with Sri Nisargadatta, and whose reputation of enlightenment remaines untarnished by egotism, scandal or hypocrisy. Thus we should get this particular biography right, and so this is what I propose to correct this, once I more adequately document some of the sources:

Sri Ramana was the second of four children of Sundaram Iyer and Azhahammal, and named Venkataraman at birth. He was born in a village called Tiruchuzhi near Madurai in Tamil Nadu, South India. Venkataraman's father was a lawyer who died when he was twelve, so he moved to his uncle's house in Madurai, where he briefly attended the American Mission High School.

At the age of sixteen, as he reported later, he had heard somebody mention the word "Arunachala." Although he didn't know what the word meant, he became greatly excited. Arunachala is a hill that is considered as being "holy" by Hindus, and that is associated with the Hindu deity of Shiva. At about the same time, Sri Ramana later reported, he had come across a copy of "Sekkilar's Periyapuranam", a book that describes the lives of Shaivite saints, and became fascinated by it.

Soon after, in mid-July 1896, while still in his sixteen year, the future Sri Ramana he had a life changing experience. As Sri Ramana reported it later: "It was in 1896, about 6 weeks before I left Madurai for good (to go to Tiruvannamalai - Arunachala) that this great change in my life took place. I was sitting alone in a room on the first floor of my uncle's house. I seldom had any sickness and on that day there was nothing wrong with my health, but a sudden violent fear of death overtook me. There was nothing in my state of health to account for it nor was there any urge in me to find out whether there was any account for the fear. I just felt I was going to die and began thinking what to do about it. It did not occur to me to consult a doctor or any elders or friends. I felt I had to solve the problem myself then and there.

The shock of the fear of death drove my mind inwards and I said to myself mentally, without actually framing the words: "Now death has come; what does it mean? What is that called dying? This body dies." And at once I dramatised the occurrence of death. I lay with my limbs stretched out still as though rigor mortis has set in, and imitated a corpse so as to give greater reality to the enquiry. I held my breath and kept my lips tightly closed so that no sound could escape, and that neither the word "I" nor any word could be uttered. "Well then," I said to myself, this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burn and reduced to ashes. But with the death of the body, am I dead? Is the body I? It is silent and inert, but I feel the full force of my personality and even the voice of I within me, apart from it. So I am the Spirit transcending the body. The body dies but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit. All this was not dull thought; it flashed through me vividly as living truths which I perceived directly almost without thought process. "I" was something real, the only real thing about my present state, and all the conscious activity connected with the body was centered on that "I". From that moment onwards, the "I" or Self focussed attention on itself by a powerful fascination. Fear of death vanished once and for all. The ego was lost in the flood of Self awareness. Absorption continued in the Self continued unbroken from that time. Other thought might come and go like the various notes of music, but the "I" continued like the fundamental sruti [that which is heard] note which underlies and blends with all other notes." . It is reported that after this event, he lost interest in school-studies, friends, and relations. Avoiding company, he preferred to sit alone, absorbed in concentration on the Self, and went daily to to the Meenakshi Temple, ecstatically devoted to the images of the Gods, tears flowing profusely from his eyes. Venkataraman stayed at his uncle's house for about 6 more weeks in this state, until criticism by his elder brother led him to think of Arunachala, and secretly left for Tiruvannamalai and Arunachala, and lived there as a renunciate for the rest of his life. Gradually, despite his silence, austerities, and desire for privacy, he attracted attention from visitors, and some became his disciples. Eventually, his family discovered his whereabouts from the reports of visitors, but despite pleas from his Mother, he refused to leave. In 1902 a Government official named Sivaprakasam Pillai, with writing slate in hand, visited the young Swami in the hope of obtaining answers to questions about ‘How to know one’s true identity’. The fourteen questions put to the young Swami and his answers were Sri Ramana's first teachings on his the method for which he became widely known, Self-Enquiry, eventually published as 'Nan Yar?', or in English, ‘Who am I?’. . . Sri Ganapathi Sastri, a Vedic scholar of repute in his age, came to visit Sri Ramana in 1907, and after receiving instructions from him, later published under the title Ramana Gita, he proclaimed him as Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. Sri Ramana was known henceforth by this name. .

In 1912, while in the company of disciples, he was observed to undergo about a fifteen minute period where he showed the outward symptoms of death, which reportedly resulted thereafter in an enhanced ability to engage in practical affairs whle remaining in 'Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi. In 1916 his mother Alagammal and younger brother Nagasundaram joined Sri Ramana at Tiruvannamalai and followed him when he moved to the larger Skandashram Cave, where Bhagavan lived until the end of 1922. His mother took up the life of a sanyasin, and Sri Ramana began to give her intense, personal instuction, while she took charge of the Ashram kitchen. Ramana's younger brother, Nagasundaram, then became a sannyasin, assuming the name Niranjanananda, becoming known as Chinnaswami (the younger Swami). Beginning in 1920, his Mother's health deteriorated. On the day of her death, May 19, 1922, at about 8 a.m., Ramana sat beside her. It is reported that throughout the day, he had his right hand on her heart, on the right side of the chest. and his left hand on her head, until her death around 8:00 p.m., when Ramana pronounced her liberated, literally, ‘Adangi Vittadu, Addakam’ (‘absorbed’).” Later Ramana said of this: “You see, birth experiences are mental. Thinking is also like that, depending on samskaras (tendencies). Mother was made to undergo all her future births in the comparatively short time.” Her body was buried on the banks of Palitirtham, a tank at the foot of the southern slope of Arunachala. After this Sri Ramana often walked from Skandashram to her tomb, then in December 1922, he came down from Skandashram permanently and settled at the base of the Hill, where Ramanashram is still located today.

It was in 1911 that the first westerner, Frank Humphreys, then a policeman stationed in India, first discovered him, and then wrote about Sri Ramana articles first published in The International Psychic Gazette in 1913. However, Sri Ramana only became relatively well known in and out of India after 1934 when Paul Brunton, having first visited Sri Ramana in January 1931, published the book A Search in Secret India, which became very popular. Resulting visitors included Paramahansa Yogananda, Sumerset Maugham, Mercedes De Acosta, Julian P. Johnson, and Arthur Osborne. Sri Ramana's relative fame spread throughout the 1940s. However, even as his fame spread, Sri Ramana was noted for his belief in the power of silence and relatively sparse use of speech, and a lack of concern for criticism. His lifestyle remained that of a renunciate.

Sri Ramana was noted for his unusual love of animals and his assertion that liberation was possible for animals too. On the morning of June 18, 1948, he realized his favorite cow Lakshmi was near death. Just as he had with his own Mother, Sri Ramana placed his hand on her head and over her heart. The cow died peacefully at 11:30 a.m. and Sri Ramana later declared that the cow was liberated.

Sri Ramana was noted for his belief in the power of silence and relatively sparse use of speech. He led a modest life and as a renunciate depended on visitors and devotees for the barest necessities. However, the popular image of him as a person who spent most of his time doing nothing except silently sitting in samadhi is highly inaccurate, according to his biographer David Godman. According to Godman, in later years, Sri Ramana was actually quite active in Asrham activities until his health failed. .

It was not long after the 50 year anniversary of his arrival at Arunachala 1946 that Sri Ramana's health rapidly deteriorated. In November 1948 a tiny cancerous lump the size of a pea was found, and in February 1949 this was removed by the ashram doctor, assisted by another devotee doctor. Soon, another growth appeared, and another operation was done by an eminent surgeon in March, 1949, and Radium was applied. The doctor told Sri Ramana that a complete amputation of the arm to the shoulder was required to save his life, but Sri Ramana refused. A third and fourth operation were performed in August and December of 1949, but only weakened him. Other systems of medicine were then tried; all proved fruitless and were stopped by the end of March when devotees gave up all hope. During all this, Sri Ramana reportedly remained peaceful and unconcerned. As his condition worsened, Sri Ramana remained available for the thousands of vistors who came to see him, even when his attendants urged him to rest. Reportedly, his attitude towards death was serene. To devotees who begged him to cure himself for the sake of his devotees, Sri Ramana is said to have replied “Why are you so attached to this body. Let it go.”, and “Where can I go? I am here.”

By April 1950 Sri Ramana was too weak to go to the hall, and visiting hours were limited to 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. in the morning and 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the evening. Visitors would file past the small room where he spent his final days to get one final glance. By April 14th, it was evident the end was near. Swami Satyananda, the attendant at the time,reports, “On the evening of 14th April 1950, we were massaging Sri Ramana’s body. At about 5 o’clock, he asked us to help him to set up. Precisely at that moment devotees started chanting ‘Arunachala Siva’, ‘Arunachala Siva’. When Sri Bhagavan heard this his face lit up with radiant joy. Tears began to flow from his eyes and continued to flow for a long time. I was wiping them from time to time. I was also giving him spoonfuls of water boiled with ginger. The doctor wanted to administer artificial respiration but Sri Bhagavan waved it away … Sri Bhagavan’s breathing became gradually slower and slower and at 8:47 p.m. it subsided. ietly." At that very moment, in many places all over India, there were independent reports of seeing a bright light rising into the sky. Reportedly, millions in India mourned his passing. Mercedes De Acosta notes that a long article about his death in the New York Times ended with: "Here in India, where thousands of so-called holy men claim close tune with the infinite, it is said that the most remarkable thing about Ramana Maharshi was that he never claimed anything remarkable for himself, yet became one of the most loved and respected of all." --Dseer 09:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

--Dseer 07:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the first portion of this, made a few small changes such as referring to Sri Ramana's father as a pleader rather than a lawyer, and expanded it with more details drawn from the official biography here: http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/bhgvnram.htm (Iddli 08:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC))

The bio added above by DSeer looks gr8, taking the entire life into account, unlike the existing page which only goes to 1907. Suggest that the Bio be broken into sub-sections for easier reading, such as "Early Life", "Life at Virupaksha Cave", "Life at Skandasramam", "Sri Ramanasramam".

Mention could be made of Advent Day (Sept 1), Mother's Aradhana, and perhaps Bhagavan's Aradhana

His mother's name is given as Alagammal here (the more common spelling, i think) and Azhagammal in the article. Take care that only one spelling is used. -- Arunachalesha 05:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of adding in a lot of the biographical information from here into the page. A lot more details need to be filled in, and i know its still quite rough/patchy, but wanted to get this going. Please feel free to edit/improve the bio, but please dont wholesale revert/slash it and take it back to square one. I will try putting in as many citations as anyone wants, but let's get this article to a B-class asap. thanks. Arunachalesha 11:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Overall two thumbs up!
And, it appears to me that there is A LOT of OR in here. I like how you responded to my tag, sound much more neutral. I will peak on the article every now and then.Sethie 03:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your suggestion of "There are many contemporary gurus/teachers who publically associate themselves with Sri Ramana, and assert claims of being in his lineage. A few even claim states of realization greater than Sri Ramana's." is clearly designed to alter the meaning of the statements by considering the contradiction not significant, and that IS opinion, while pointing out the contradiction with what Sri Ramana taught about it ISN'T for purposes of that section. "Despite this", or some equivalent caveat, simply points out that these claims contradict Sri Ramana as listed above, and is neither OR or an opinion different that Ramana's position. I'm simply not going to agree that the assertions of anybody who claims to be in Sri Ramana's lineage when it was never recognized as existing and when the claimants contradict basic tenets of Sri Ramana's teachings should not be caveated given the contradictions with Sri Ramana's actual teaching and approach, which are not OR or an opinion about Sri Ramana, but what Ramana actually said and taught. These claimants are entitled to their exalted opinion of their state and position in some unauthorized Ramana "lineage" where they can violate basic tenets of Sri Ramana's teaching, but not without reference to the differences with Sri Ramana. If you want to provide sources stating that Ramana was incorrect in what he said and that such a lineage is valid along with the claims of superior realization, put it in a criticism section and in the claimant's articles, not in a section in the Ramana article which documents no such lineages or contradictory methods were taught or authorized by Sri Ramana. BTW, what you call OR is probably only sourced material you are not familiar with and may very welll not agree with. That doesn't make it OR. I suggest you be more helpful and less tendacious here. --Dseer 07:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * All you need to do is find a citation that says what you want to say and cite it.


 * I am open to being wrong about what I am labeling OR, and you can show that I am wrong by putting in a citation.


 * You say: "If you want to provide sources stating that Ramana was incorrect in what he said and that such a lineage is valid" I don't want to say they are valid. That sounds like OR to me.


 * And so does saying they are invalid, without a source. Sethie 21:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You again miss the point. I propose neither assertions of validity or non validity for either position, only that there is a conflict, which is the purpose of "Despite that" or equivalent language. An omission of mention of the conflict which you propose is a type of information suppression that impacts NPOV. This is not just about Sri Ramana, it is a principle that a lineage in the vedantic sense is not something sombody just claims, it is authorized, and a lineage preserves a basic tradition and dharma, thus one who significantly diverges from that is hard pressed to justify claims of being in that lineage. Since you are familiar with the TM's Maharishi, let me use that as an example. You should understand that Maharishi was neither qualified by his status or identified as being in Guru Dev's lineage (a successor dispute still exists in that lineage, BTW), and directly contradicts many of his Guru Dev's teachings, including giving mantras without Ishtadevas and demanding money in return, despite claims he was doing his Master's work. So I could say, after quoting these facts and what Guru Dev said in direct contradiction to what he teaches, that despite this (from his guru), the Maharishi still maintains he is doing Guru Dev's work as communicated from the subtle plane and has thus reinterpreted, improved and universalized the teaching for modern times, which is not an opinion, it simply highlights a known area of dispute. So we only point out the issue and deciding whether the Maharishi is correct or not is not up to editors, it is up to the reader to decide. Likewise, since Sri Ramana never authorized any successors, and the bulk of those westerners claiming to be in his lineage conflict with his manner of teaching in significant points, and some like Cohen with his "evolutionary enlightement" and Adi Da with his claims that Sri Ramana aided him but was not fully enlightened, even assert superior states of realization, "despite this" only illuminates an area of dispute that these claims are in conflict with Sri Ramana's teachings as listed in the previous sentences. The same type of problem exists with Sri Nisargadatta who also desired and left no lineage, and with the way those like Ramesh Balsekar and his followers have created a "lineage" that has expanded and in some cases conflicted with what Sri Nisargadatta taught. It is up to the reader to decide whether to believe the lineage claims and the claims of superior realization or not. It seems strange that someone so obviously ignorant of the deeper aspects of Sri Ramana's actual teachings as yourself given the poor condition of the article as I found it would hang out here and set yourself up as a phrase by phrase authority on what is OR when editors are actually making the article more accurate and NPOV. Most of the current article is very poor and needs correction to conform to valid sourcing, and will need to be totally rewritten to correct obvious errors and omissions, yet you only challenge those editors who actually know the subject well. You have responsibilities too, so I don't know why the other editors here should be expected to provide hundreds of citations for what is consistent with the references and links just because you choose not to do anything other than hold up the status quo as some sort of benchmark while criticizing other editors who are familiar with the subject. What we need is more editors who actually understand the subject willing to work on this article. --Dseer 01:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like to leave your ideas ouf of the article "I propose....that there is a conflict." I believe your desire to include this thought violates WP:NOR "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;"

Personally, I do not disagree that there is some conflict. I merely disagree that you are a reputable source we can use!

In fact, I do not disagree much of what I have tagged or removed. I look to Muruganar and Sadhu Om as the most authoritative "commentors" on Ramana. If Ramana looked over Suri Nagamma's letters, which I don't doubt he did, I would consider them very authoritative. I merely disagree with the inclusion of the opinion of their "authoritative" status without a citation.

I thank you for your feedback on my ignorance "of the deeper aspect of Sri Ramana's actual teaching." It is true, I still believe there is a world. On more clearer days the world is seen as a long lasting dream state, but even then, there is a subtle belief that the dream was created or exists. This mind doesn't believe in a doer or liberation, but the belief in the world persists as does the belief that the health of this body has value, so you are right to rebuke me.

WP:V clearly states: "The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it." Sethie 05:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Dseer, I would be happy to respond to your request above for more editors who understand the subject. I have a very large collection of books by and about Sri Ramana and have spent hundreds of hours reading and rereading these as well as many other books which are available on line.


 * Sethie, a question for you: why did you never request any proof to back up the claims that various people were "in Sri Ramana's lineage" yet you are pressing for fact tags/citations for these two sentences: "Despite this[citation needed], there are many contemporary gurus/teachers who publically associate themselves with Sri Ramana, and assert claims of being in his lineage, [6]. One even claim states of realization greater than Sri Ramana's [7]."?


 * I have never come upon a single reference, in any book I have ever read by or about Sri Ramana to suggest that there is any validity to these claims. Because many people reading the wiki site will likely have heard of these claims to lineage, it seems entirely appropriate to briefly clarify the matter that no such lineage exists. (And lineage is a formal matter, not a matter of opinion. Just as hundreds of people cannot claim to be my spouse without my knowing anything about it, hundreds of people cannot claim to be in Sri Ramana's lineage without his knowing about it ;-).) It seems in poor taste to me (and an unnecessary distraction) to single out one or two examples of people making such false claims from the droves who are doing this and publish their names on the Ramana Maharshi site. (Iddli 06:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I asked for a citation, not for whether or not they "were "in Sri Ramana's lineage" since that sentence is nowhere in the article. I asked for a citation that they claimed to be in his lineage. []


 * Iddli to "clarify" that no such lineage exists, you need a citation stating no such lineage exists! Sethie 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Arunachalesha 16:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC) I am the one who (earlier) put in the line about many people claiming lineage from Ramana. (seeing the remark below about Iddle and DSeer, i think you can see that our IP addresses should be different.) The reason i put that line was because earlier, i found many persons' names in this section. Some like gangaji and Mooji are Papaji's disciple, and thus should not be here. I did not want people using this section to promote themselves, thus i removed their names and placed that general line. There are many more on the internet who claim to have some "connection" with Ramana. i can offline hand you websites/names but the purpose will be defeated if i put their names there. The only proof that there is no lineage is that he never said so. And at the time of passing away he did not ask his devotees to go to some other guru/disciple. If gurus wish to claim a lineage to Ramana on their personal websites, that is fine with me, but their links should not come here (Arunachalesha, India)

To iddli and Dseer
Iddli, you sound A LOT like Dseer.

Would the two of you please answer the following questions:

Do you two know each other? Are the two of you the same person?

Thank you. Sethie 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Involved Editors
Please state your "case" in a few sentences

User Dseer clearly states his bias "I propose neither assertions of validity or non validity for either position, only that there is a conflict" and wishes that opinion reflected in the article, without providing a citation for it. He origoannly argue for the weasel words "despite this" now he is usuing a citation which does not support the idea he is using it for. I believe the most neutral approach would be to say: Ramana said _____ and other teachers says _____ and leave out all other commentary and let the reader decide. The current version is a step forward [] yet I still believe some editors are trying to make up the readers's mind about what is true, without just letting facts speak for themselves. Sethie 18:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the context of the full statements and it is apparent that it is information suppression that I want to avoid. The positions behind the conflict are quite clear and sourced: Sri Ramana, the official organization, and claimed lineage members like Poonjai/Papaji do not support the lineage claims, and a lineage in the underlying tradition is to be formal and recognized, not self-asserted; while many of those lower in this lineage claim it exists despite that. Statements consistent with that sourced, in this case, the Ramanashram source, are not OR. No definitive assertions of validity in the sense of being proven correct are being proposed, it is the existense of the conflict that is illuminated, and its existence is not an opinion, it is sourced. --Dseer 07:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen
I don't see Cohen saying he is better the the Maharshi, could you point me to the section in which you read him that way? Sethie 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This misses the significance of nuances and overlooks the overall context. For one thing, I didn't use the term "better", you did, so the entire question is, regardless of intent, a strawman. And I was clearly using Andrew Cohen as an example, not to attack Andrew Cohen here, because you asked for proof one existed, not as the sole basis for the statement. And "evolutionary enlightenment", as advocated and amplified by Andrew Cohen and Ken Wilber among others, states that enlightenment itself evolves over time, and thus has that intended conotation of being a more evolved state. Again, Wikipedia must maintain NPOV and can not assert with certainty either that the more modern evolutionary view or the traditional and Sri Ramana's stated view of enlightenment as unchanging are the only correct views. But you are not acknowledging that the conflict is documented, sourced, and notable, and that deemphasizing it by not acknowledging a self-evident as well as sourced conflict exists directly is a form of information suppression. To expect Sri Ramana, who died in 1950 after never leaving one place in India since he was 16, and only answered questions that were given to him, not idle speculation, to specifically address all the future lineage claims and all evolving or more advanced stages of enlightenment by westerners who never knew him which would have been unthinkable to his close followers and even close western followers at the time, makes no cultural or logical sense. But when not only Sri Ramana deliberately did not authorize a lineage but even Poonjai/Papaji who is the claimed lineage link said he didn't and didn't have any enlightened followers, that he was just testing the egos of some of his ambitious followers, and given the official editorial position of Ramanashram's magazine on the subject, it is not my "opinion". It does, however, put those many who advocate a lineage, and I've seen it even claimed through a couple gurus removed from Poonjai/Papaji, in the interesting position of asserting what lacks a shred of evidence of Sri Ramana's authorization and what is in conflict with the statements of the claimed founder and the immediate disciple. BTW, Andrew Cohen's own mother, Tarlo, became disillusioned with him and in the process "later discovered that Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950) left no lineage" (not attributable yet, but referenced here: ). Teachers can claim whatever revelation they want, including lineages not mentioned while alive but supposedly authorized by teachers from the subtle plane after death, and the claim can be reported in Wikipedia, but for purposes of this article on Sri Ramana, there just isn't any evidence he left or intended a lineage as claimed. The issue here is not to specify or draw promotional attention to this or that teacher who claims to associate with Sri Ramana, it is how such claims in general fit with what Sri Ramana lived and taught while alive, which is a primary goal of this article. Your latest change, which does not alter the essential import of my last edit, is at last more collaborative and something to work with, let us see whatbut for purposes of this article on Sri Ramana, there just isn't any evidence he left or intended a lineage as claimed. other editors think. But given the sad state of this article from the perspective of subject matter experts vis a vis a desired more accurate and less superficial assessement of Sri Ramana's life and teaching, what is desireable is more subject knowledge. --Dseer 01:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are very correct, the term I objected to and removed was "more evolved" not that he is "better."


 * "and thus has that intended conotation of being a more evolved state." For a wiki article I don't think connotations suffice. Please just find direct, clear, un-nuanced statements that you wish to source.


 * "there just isn't any evidence he left or intended a lineage as claimed." I am in COMPLETE 100% agreement with you about this.


 * We just seem to disagree over what to DO with it. I just want to cleanly state it and let the facts speak for themselves. Sethie 02:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The first sentence and the mountain path editorial reference is all we absolutely need to make the point that lineage claimants and those with conflicted behavior won't find support from Ramana or his close followers from that period, but only from those who never knew him. Easier to just discard the rest at this point. The meaning of evolutionary is far more self evident than the lineage dispute, but lets save that for some other time. --Dseer 06:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What I am confused over is why you want "to make the point that lineage claimants and those with conflicted behavior won't find support from Ramana or his close followers from that period" here in Wikipedia. If you can't find a source which clearly says what you want to say, Wikipedia is not the place to say it! WP:NOT says, very clearly: "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses" WP:NOR say very clearly: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source"


 * I agree, for the most part with the idea that "lineage claimants and those with conflicted behavior won't find support from Ramana or his close followers from that period." I disagree that wikipedia is the place to say it. Would you be willing to please find a CRYSTAL clear citation for this idea, which says just that, or stop trying to put it in the article? Sethie 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Eli
I re-read the page you present for him and don't see him as claiming to be "in Ramana's lineage." I see him with a page that says "Lineage:" and has three teachers listed under. I have changed the wording to reflect this. Sethie 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont wish to get in an edit a section that others are. But i would request that AdiDa and Cohen are kept out of here. Here is one more person who claims connection with Ramana -- sai kaleshwar and another .... And yet another, seems to be deleted, thus referring to google cache. However, i did not want to add these names on the site to prove the point that people are claiming "connection" or lineage.

DSeer is it possible to strike out the line "Others assert claims of a different "expression" of enlightenment [9], and one specifically claims to be in a state of realization greater than Sri Ramana's [10]." Arunachalesha 06:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the first sentence: "Despite the above and the statement of the Ashram's official magazine that there is no lineage there are many contemporary gurus/teachers who publically associate themselves with Sri Ramana, some who claim a kind of lineage with Ramana" is sufficiently sourced by the Mountain Path editorial talking about the lineage claims existing, no other sources are needed. There are dozens of people claiming to be in a lineage with Ramana, mostly with suspect reputations. At this point, having proven the lineage claim exists, no need to give any of them, including the ones you mentioned or Gangaji and her Wikipedia mentioned, sex-scandal fallen teacher but "enlightened" husband Eli free publicity just because they claim to be enlightened and in a lineage neither the founder or the disciple recognized. Get rid of the second sentence and all other references then, lets move on, I was just trying to help a fellow editor out. The article is very poor still, lots of work is needed. All editors, including Sethie, are responsible for helping to find good sources and not just criticism. We need simplicity but not at the expense of overlooking key points. --Dseer 06:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that one line, Also (a trivial suggestion) suggest that the line "Despite the above and the statement of the Ashram's official magazine that there is no lineage[7], there are many contemporary gurus/teachers who publically associate themselves with Sri Ramana, some who claim a kind of lineage with Ramana [8]. " be reworded as something like: "As per the statement of the Ashram's official magazine that there is no lineage and therefore no teachers in Sri Ramana's tradition." but i hate to spend our whole lives over one line! This could obviate the need for citations (hopefully!) However, i admit that thanks to Sethie this has become an awful lot of fuss over something trivial (5 names that i removed). I have added some books and categorized them a bit. Hope that looks okay. Yes, Editors, lets get on with some real work! Arunachalesha 07:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Arunachalesha, for cleaning up this little section. And I like your rewording ("As per ....") Agreed, let's get on with some real work! (In that spirit, I just did some work on the Life section.) (Iddli 08:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I like the progress being made. Constructive edits of my work are encouraged. Lets all take this opportunity to make a fresh start and not just use the pre-existing but deeply flawed article as a benchmark. There is lots of work left for all of us here to do to clean up the inaccurate and/or incomplete information before resubmitting for a GA, but I assume we can all agree at least Sri Ramana's life and teaching is finally being reported with accuracy. --Dseer 23:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable Followers
Would like to suggest that some of Sri Ramana's attendants also be given mention here. Either in this section or built into his bio. e.g. Palaniswamy, (the one who died with his head on Ramana's lap). I would help out but i am lacking info such as dates. Madhava Swami is another of the well-known attendants as is Kunju Swami.

Annamalai Swami also served Ramana for over a decade.

The level of devotion to Ramana may be elicited by the 2 ladies (Echamma and Mudaliar Granny) who for 40 years never ate a morsel until Ramana had eaten from it.

My point is that Sri Ramana's life is incomplete without the mention of certain people who served him or affected his mortal life. So I am not suggesting a comprehensive list of devotees and attendants, just the ones whom you might consider really important. Arunachalesha 08:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that if others are mentioned in the article, space should not be spent on all those modern claimants who never actually met Sri Ramana and whose claims are not recognized, but on those who actually played a significant role in his life. --Dseer 23:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know what is the most neutral and encyclopedia-esque position on this issue is, I am still sitting with it. I do know that mention of the pheonomena is neccesary, it is big and it happens a lot. I am surprised Papaji is not mentioned here, isn't he the most famous of Ramana's students? Sethie 15:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Famous" by no means means that he (Papaji) was actually a student/follower of Ramana. He became famous in the west, due to sending followers there to get more people. As far as taachings go, Ramana wanted seekers to put in effort, wherease I believe Papaji did not. Ramana's true followers (Muruganar, Kunju Swami, Annamalai) never wanted name and fame, but i guess thats a POV. Arunachalesha 18:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Whether he was or wasn't a student of Ramana, he claims some connection. He is certainly notable... so let's just find Papaji's own words and just state them, without needing to confirm or deny them- that is what NPOV means to me. To not include him in this article reaks of POV-pushing. The bottom line is whether we think he is a junk teacher or not )I personally don't hold him in particularly high regard) he is one of the most famous people in the West (and maybe in India, I don't feel comfortable making claims about who is famous for another culture) who yes, CLAIMS to have awoken through association with Ramana. To leave him out because we think he isn't the real deal or his teachings are different, is total violation of WP:NPOV. Let's just have a neutral reporting of the facts please, with no personal interpretation or analysis, just citing OTHER people's interpretations or anlysis. Sethie 18:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In reply to DSeer's reply, yes, we should keep the list very limited. I leave the actual names to you, i just gave some suggestions. Arunachalesha 17:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Zen, what next ?
Someone has added a para that Ramana's teaching was similar to Zen. My understanding is that "Who Am I" is NOT a koan. I feel this is an innessential point of view (imho). I was also under the impression that we were keeping this page crisp and to-the-point. I feel this para should be deleted. Arunachalesha 17:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well let's give the guy a chance, it reaks of OR to me, however, maybe it isn't just an opinion and someone notable made the comparison. I have asked for a citation. If he doesn't have one within a week, I say we delete it. Sethie 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A spam vandal who added this unsourced, spam opinion here and at Sri Nisargadatta before. Deleted this contribution once before at both articles, will do so every time this spam is added to either article until the guy provides some relevant source. There is no source from either teacher since both teachers absolutely stated the practice was not a mantra. No need to give this spam of some zen practice a week of free advertising here. --Dseer 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: There is one Zen teacher, who is increasingly recognized a great Zen Master at least comparable to the founders of other zen schools, Bankei, whose teachings, when you equate "Unborn" with Self, are not unlike Sri Ramana's. He even had a kind of death experience. Bankei was a humble man who criticized stale koans, stale ritual, stale beliefs, gender based discrimination, as well as other unnecessary barriers, and taught ordinary folks, a few who tradition says became enlightened. He advised simply abiding in the Unborn Mind (Self) until realization became stable. Naturally, this was a threat to the traditional zen schools and authorities and after his death his teachings were suppressed for a long time. However, there isn't any attributable source for the assertion of such an equivalence even though it has been noticed, so this so far is just OR for information to editors here who probably haven't looked into this in case anybody has personal interest. Anyone who claims that Self Enquiry is a "koan" needs to provide a source first, not some spam link to some other practice, and even then should be put in the critical section since there is ample evidence Sri Ramana never taught it. --Dseer 19:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An appology
For some reason, about a week and a half ago, this mind assigned itsself the task of being the wiki-rule guardian over this page, making sure citations were in place, WP:NOR, etc, etc., etc.

In looking back I very much regret the energy I came from and many of my actions and posts on this talk page. I was at times brash, inconsiderate, arrogant, borderline insulting, preachy, demanding that things be done my way, intolerant, impaitent, thinking that only I knew what was the right way to do things, not willing to listen what either of you were saying (more so towards Deseer).

So I would very much like to appologize for any way that i may have hindered the work you two are doing. I hear both of you asking me to not delete stuff and to talk about it first, which I am very willing to do.

And, I would like to ask: is there any other way I can make things right? warmly, Sethie 03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, praps we got off on the wrong foot, as they say :-) You have expertise in WP standards, while I am learning the ropes. Your suggestions in this respect are certainly valuable and welcome. Let's hope things go smoothly in the future. Regards, Arunachalesha 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Photographs please
I would like one or 2 more pix loaded, but am a little hesitant with the license etc. not sure how to go about it. can someone else help ? Seems the existing pic mentions copyright of Sri Ramanasramam, so we should not have a problem loading new ones. The pictures i have in mind could be the above are just suggestions, thou. If you see other pages like that of Adi Shankara you will notice that their pages are replete with pix. So hopefully that wont be construed as making this a "fan-site" :-) thx Arunachalesha 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) earliest one (age 21)
 * 2) picture of Ramana with background of Arunachala (present on many book covers) with leg crossed
 * 3) possibly the 1928 pic of him standing with the upcoming asram in background  (altho thats very blurred)


 * :-) Well, the guy who would do such a thing has left the building, however, he tells me that if he were still around, you would only be IN DANGER!!!! of this occuring if you did things very differently on this page then other wiki pages Sethie 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "one or 2 pix" will put me in danger !!! Oh my !

That is precisely why i am studying similar sites like Adi Shankara, Buddha, Gandhi etc. Arunachalesha 15:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you said it, not me. I have set idea of what is or isn't too many pictures in an article, it's more like I'll know it when I see it....Sethie 04:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Propose to remove the discussion forum link
Sethie does't think very hightly of including that link, for two main reasons- the forum looks brand new, it has only a couple hundred messages and most importantly, you have to register to view any of the messages. 3rdly, Sethie doesn't remember seeing any links to forums in other articles 4thly- Sethie's "Britanica Test." If the Encyclopedia Britanica was online and had external links, would it link to that forum? Sethie believes his 2nd objection rules it out completely as a valid link in a wiki article. He thinks the 4th rules it out very strongly as well, however he wanted to touch base before being a ravaging rash deltionist! :)

Sethie believes the article would look better and feel more like an encyclopedia article without a link to a forum. Sethie 04:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen a link to a forum somewhere. Praps on a grade A article. trying to recall. See the External Links in the Buddha page : "hundred of free buddhist talks and a huge forum" Arunachalesha 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * btw, Je Reviens. wikibreak wikistress Arunachalesha 04:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC


 * I went over to check if the Eckhart Tolle page had a link to a forum, suspecting that it would, and it did indeed have one, and not only that, there was also a link to a "fan site." :-) (Iddli 07:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Jesus CHRIST ALMIGHTY! A FANSITE! What is Wikipedia coming to? Sethie will go delete the entire ET page.


 * Sethie stands corrected, there are some other spages with links to discussion forums, so.....


 * Sethie does't think very hightly of including that link, for a couple of reasons- the forum looks brand new, it has only a couple hundred messages. 2ndly, you have to register to view any of the messages. 3rdly, Sethie doesn't think very hightly of links to disucssion forums in encyclopedia articles (of all his reasons, Sethie is least attached to this one). 4thly- Sethie's "Britanica Test." If the Encyclopedia Britanica was online and had external links, would it link to that forum? Sethie believes his 2nd objection rules it out completely as a valid link in a wiki article. He thinks the 4th rules it out very strongly as well.


 * Bon reviens Aruna....Sethie 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sethie has read over the guidelines and am going to reemove this link, per WP:EL "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content...A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article."


 * Sethie is open to their being a forum link and does oppose it, so before another is put in, he would like to hear how/why others think it enhances the article. Sethie 09:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael James links
Yes, I agree one link to MJ's work is adequate. At the top of the page we are currently linked to, both the ebook link and the blog link are clearly visible. Iddli 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yogeshwarji links
I have twice removed links to this site (http://www.swargarohan.org/) because the site is mainly about another teacher. I just removed the link in the biographies section (which takes one to an e-book "biography of Ramana Maharshi" in Gujarati) after carefully reading the smaller Ramana Maharshi biography on the Yogeshwarji site. The small biography contains numerous errors and does not contain any information about Sri Ramana which is not already contained in the wikipedia article (other than the detail of Sri Ramana granting Yogeshwarji darshan in the Himalayas). If anyone here is able to read the e-book and finds that it contains valuable new information about or insights into Sri Ramana and his life, let's put the link to the e-book back on. (Iddli 21:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Sethie thinks an even better solution is to use it as a refference if there is unique information there. If it adds nothing new, no need for it to be a link. If it adds just a little new, use it as a refference. Sethie 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good plan. I wish I could read Gujarati to see if there is anything in the bio that somehow escaped the attention of the other biographers. The nature of the errors in the brief bio of Sri Ramana on the Yogeshwarji site made me think this unlikely, but maybe we will be happily surprised. (Iddli 02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link
In case of a possible WP:COI Sethie has removed a link. Sethie 20:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ramana maharshi wikiquote

 * A possible candidate: "The mind will subside only by means of the inquiry, "Who am I?" The thought "Who am I," destroying all other thoughts, will itself finally be destroyed like the stick used for stirring the funeral pyre." Iddli 07:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, as for that candidate, here's my take: I don't like the wording "only by the means of the inquiry, 'Who am I'" - it is too intolerant. This may be a case of inadequate translation. One must be inward-turned to destroy the veiling thoughts - maya - but there are surely other valid means (koans) for sacred introversion, and this wording seems to invalidate any other means. Perhaps not. In any case, please feel free to add the specified candidate to the wikiquote section yourself, however, due to my personal preferences, I will not be contributing it... at the moment, at least.


 * new additions! if someone would double-check my work for clarity, it would be appreciated. moreover, some more contributions would be welcome. let's continue to use the talk pages ergonomically!

Misleading points in the Ramana Maharshi article
'''Sri Ramana Maharshi (December 30, 1879 – April 14, 1950) was a Hindu Sage. He primarily advocated Self-enquiry (Atma-Vichara) to attain spiritual realization.'''

I would say that self-enquiry was his most distinctive teaching, rather one that he 'primarily advocated'.

When I edited Be As You Are in the 1980s I collected all the quotes by Bhagavan that I could find and arranged them by subject. At the end of this collection process by far the largest file was quotes along the lines of 'You are the Self' 'The Self alone exists', and so on. I think most people tend to filter out lines such as these when they read Bhagavan's books because they are looking for the 'What do I actually do to get enlightened?' stuff.

I would say that Bhagavan's teaching was primarily the radiant silence that emanated from him as a result of his Self-abidance, not any particular verbal formulation. Those who were unable to quieten their minds by tuning into this emanation of mauna, and who wanted words of upadesa, would be told 'You are the Self'. Those who would then say, 'Yes, but this is not my experience. What do I do to realise it?' might be advised to do self-enquiry. Bhagavan tended to start from the highest teachings and work his way down if people were unable to appreciate the higher ones. Self-enquiry was therefore not the primary teaching, but one that was given out to people who asked for a method. And even then, it was not prescribed to everyone. Bhagavan's style was not prescriptive. If people came to him and said 'I am doing japa of Krishna's name,' Bhagavan would generally show his approval, without asking for any change. If devotees asked, 'What is the quickest way to realise the Self?' they would be told 'Self-enquiry', and if they asked if they could practise it, Bhagavan would always give his approval, but to say, as the introductory paragraph of this article does, that 'he primarily advocated self-enquiry to attain spiritual realisation' is too strong a statement, and somewhat misleading.

Bhagavan did not give out spiritual advice unless he was asked for it. To say 'primarily advocated' has a missionary ring to it, giving the feeling that he was a pro-active proselytiser who encouraged all his visitors to follow this technique. Lucia Osborne wrote in The Mountain Path in the early 1970s that the only practical advice he ever gave out, without being asked first, was to do pradakshina of Arunachala.

And now a couple of nit-picking points. Self enquiry is an enquiry into the individual self, not the absolute Self. Capitalising the 'self' in Self-enquiry tends to give the misleading impression that it is the Atman that is being enquired into, not the jiva.

I would also say that it is misleading to say that he was a Hindu. His state transcended all categories, including the religion he was born into. For what it is worth, there was a court case in the 1950s and 60s (cases drag on for years here) over the ownership of Ramanasramam. Bhagavan's family were contesting an attempt by the Hindu Endowment Board to take over the ashram. In his ruling the judge declared that since Bhagavan was 'atiasrami' he had transcended all religions. This meant that The Hindu Endowment Board could not take over his ashram since they only had the authority to take over Hindu establishments.

Next quote...

'''At the age of sixteen, as he reported later, he had heard somebody mention the word "Arunachala." Although he didn't know what the word meant, he became greatly excited.'''

Bhagavan was always aware of Arunachala and its sanctity. In Arunachala Ashtakam, verse one, he wrote that he was aware of the greatness of Arunachala 'from my unthinking childhood'. A year before his Self-realisation experience a relative returned from Arunachala and told Bhagavan where he had been. Bhagavan was excited because up till that point he had regarded it as some sort of heavenly realm, not a place that could actually be visited.

To summarise: he was aware all his life that Arunachala was something great, and that it denoted God in some way, but it was only when he was fifteen that he became aware that it had a physical location that could be visited.

The next quote I want to comment on is the very long 'How I realised the Self' quote. This is now accepted as the standard version of what happened. It appears in most of the biographies, and there is even a huge sign in the New Hall at Ramanasramam that has the whole quote painted in large letters. However, the sequence of events and the language used is largely the work of Narasimhaswami, a fact which he acknowledged in the first edition of Self-Realization where he put a footnote at the bottom of the page where this description appeared, saying that he had written this account himself, and that he had based it on stray comments that he had heard Bhagavan make over a period of a few weeks. In subsequent editions this footnote was removed, leaving readers with the impression that Bhagavan had actually uttered these words himself. There are many suspect phrases in this account, such as the one that says that after his realisation he felt the full force of his 'personality', which was actually the thing that had disappeared. I discussed this whole account with Prof. K. Swaminathan in the early 1980s, and he agreed that the account had in many places been fabricated by Narasimhaswami, not deliberately, but largely out of ignorance of what had actually happened.

If I was sitting down to write an account of Bhagavan's life and his realisation experience, I would certainly cite this as a source, but I would also include other versions that have variations and additions to this basic account. There is, for example, Bhagavan's own brief written summary in Arunachala Ashtakam, verse two, where he wrote: 'Enquiring within "Who is the seer? " I saw the seer disappear leaving that alone which stands forever. No thought arose to say "I saw". How then could the thought arise to say "I did not see". '

I would also include a key account that Narasimhaswami recorded, in Bhagavan's own words, that did not find its way into his published version of Self-Realization. It appeared in the April 1982 edition of The Mountain Path and gives key extra details that the standard version lacked. For example, Bhagavan's initial belief, after realisation, that he had been possessed by some sort of pleasant spirit (he used the Tamil word avesam) since he had no other context through which he could evaluate the experience.

Narasimhaswami also misses out Bhagavan's experience of the aham-sphurana just prior to his realisation, an event which is recorded in Ramana Leela, the Telugu biography. I discussed some of these points in '"I" and "I-I", a Reader's Query', an article I wrote for The Mountain Path in the early 1990s. As one of your editors pointed out, in the Telugu biography it is quite clear that when Bhagavan describes his realisation to Krishna Bhikshu, the author, he makes it clear that it was something that happened to him, rather than something that he 'did'. These are important points that are largely ignored by Narasimhaswami.

When Bhagavan had to testify in the court case that was brought by Perumal Swami in the 1930s, Perumal Swami's lawyer produced a copy of Narasimhaswami's book and asked him if the contents were accurate. Bhagavan replied that he had not read it before it was published, and that it contained some mistakes.

One of these mistakes was almost certainly the comment attributed to Bhagavan when he first stood before the lingam in the Arunachaleswara Temple: 'I have come to Thee at Thy behest. Thy will be done.' This is just a romantic interpolation by Narasimhaswami that has no basis in facts. Kapali Sastri once asked Bhagavan about this alleged incident, and Bhagavan replied, somewhat scornfully, 'As if I needed to announce my arrival'.

Narasimhaswami was an energetic researcher, and much of what we know about Bhagavan's early life comes from his exhaustive research, but he did make occasional mistakes, and he was in the habit of writing accounts in his own words and attributing them to other people. When I went through the Ramanasramam archives in the late 1970s and early 1980s I found many manuscripts that contained conversations, recorded by Narasimhaswami, that he was attributing to Bhagavan. Bhagavan was making philosophical points in them in an incremental, almost socratic way, something which seemed to me to be alien to his 'get straight to the point' style. I showed the dialogues to Viswanatha Swami, who had listened to Bhagavan speak for many years, and he agreed that all the conversations had been fabricated. The teachings were clearly derived from what he had heard Bhagavan say, but the construction of the dialogues and the language used by Bhagavan was so untypical of everything else I had seen recorded, I was forced to conclude that it mostly came from Narasimhaswami himself. I mention all this because when it comes to statements made by Bhagavan that are recorded by Narasimhaswami, the phrase 'caveat emptor' is clearly appropriate.

Next quote:

Bhagavan's early name was 'Brahmana Swami' not Brahman Swami'.

Next:

Soon after this, in February of 1899, Sri Ramana moved further up Arunachala where he stayed briefly in Satguru Cave and Guhu Namasivaya Cave before taking up residence at Virupaksha Cave for the next 17 years, using Mango Tree cave during the summers (except for a six month period at Pachaiamman Koil during the plague epidemic).

While Bhagavan's primary residence between 1900 and 1915 was Virupaksha Cave, he also stayed at the other places that were mentioned. He did not move from these other places to Virupaksha Cave. For example, Sivaprakasam Pillai met Bhagavan at Guha Namasivaya Cave in 1901 and Bhagavan wrote many of the replies that ended up in Who am I? in the sand there.

Next:

 'according to his biographer David Godman'

I have never written a biography of Bhagavan, although I have given details of his life in many of my books.

Next:

 the Ashram now has several branches throughout India and abroad.

To say 'branches' implies some sort of legal affiliation, which is not there. The various centres that exist were started independently by devotees in those locations. They are not subsidiary entities managed by Ramanasramam. There is a lot more that I intended to write, but I have visitors coming in a few minutes. Maybe I will get back to this later.

David Godman    4th July 2007


 * Dear David, I am so happy you have come here! I really appreciate all that you have said above. Please come back after your visitors have departed and add in all that you had planned to say. I will start to add in some of the changes you suggest, such as taking out "Hindu" (I completely agree with you about that and was wanting to take it out before) -- and cleaning up any of my own work as per your suggestions (like "Brahmana Swami") ... any of these things I hope I will not go wrong with ... but for the larger issues you address, will you kindly be the one to make the changes? with appreciation, Iddli 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to see you here, David. I do not dispute what you have said. Some of these errors were pre-existing from the recent clean up of the article from its poor original state, and in some cases, the need to tie wording to available sources drove some of the wording. There is still much work to do to make this article as accurate as it can be and to find the sources to support the most accurate potrayal. Anything you can do to help would be most appreciated.--Dseer 18:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Heya David, welcome.


 * :) You showing up here will simplify one question Sethie has- are the articles that are listed in the external links section whic h you authored copyrighted? Sethie's hunch is that those websites are violating copyrights of yours.Sethie 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

introductory sentences
The changes I made recently to the introductory 2 sentences were meant to incorporate some of the very helpful suggestions recently made here by David Godman. Above, David Godman explains why the term Hindu is misleading (and, in addition to the court transcripts DG refers to, there is also Sri Bhagavan's removal of his sacred thread after he offered himself at his Father's feet at the Arunachaleswara temple shortly after his arrival there). It was David Godman's comments that led me to feel we needed to tone down the assertion that Sri Ramana "primarily advocated" self-enquiry -- similarly,  to say that he "propounded advaita" seems to me to attribute a kind of zealousness to him that he simply did not have.

I propose that we include in the Family Background section the fact that Sri Ramana was born into a Hindu family, but I agree with David Godman that it is misleading to include this in the sentence or two in which we attempt to capture his "essence". Iddli 04:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User Iddli, I have added reference for "hindu". So now there should be no problem with it.The word "Hindu" here is not at all misleading unless you have some personal problems with that tag.-Bharatveer 04:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Dseer, I have modified your edits and have moved the sentences to the "teachings section".D.godman, for all his experise on Sree ramana is just another westerner ( read christian) who looks at dharmic traditions through his semitic eyes.Please understand that all "Mukthas" essentially give up all religious traditions, since they are "beyond" that stage.Please also understand "Self realisation" is not an "invention" of Sree Ramana.Many "mukhtas" some known , more unknown have lived and preached the same since time immemorial.If you are interested , I can provide you the teachings of such "mukhtas".-Bharatveer 05:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was tolerant because I thought maybe you simply didn't know better. Given your bigoted response, I will not tolerate anymore your bigotry towards westerners and your uncollaborative approach, as well as your proven factual errors. I suggest you read Wikipedia guidelines about expertise and realize you are no expert and in no position make such accusations about a noted Ramana expert and published editor of numerous books and Ashram publications just because you don't like what he says. You are really claiming the Ashram itself who endorses his works and made him editor of the Ashram publication doesn't understand Ramana's teachings, without any evidence to back up such outrageous charges. Your links are unsatisfactory to prove Godman is wrong and will not be accepted. The Sivananda link is spam and will be deleted henceforth without further discussion. You false statements about Ramana's teaching are demonstrably wrong and since you do not take friendly advice kindly will henceforth be deleted without further discussion. If you do not immediately desist with your zealot agenda, I will report you for non-collaboration, conflict of interest in that you are trying to advance a pro-hindu nationalist agenda on the english wikipedia site, and self-stated bigotry, proven by your own words. I suggest you do not try and foist your bigoted, nationalist agenda on those who have spent a lifetime studying Advaita and Sri Ramana in particular. It will not be tolerated. --Dseer 17:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tolerance is a "dirty" word, Please dont use that word in any of the "dharmic" articles or for that matter, either in any other article in WIKIPEDIA too. I would request you to practice "acceptance" instead of being "mere" tolerant towards . -Bharatveer 05:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I noticed prior evidence of your bigotry and ignorance re this subject but wanted to give you a chance first, which is what I meant by tolerant. Request what you will, I am under no dharmic requirement to accept what is not devic but asuric without comment or action. Don't assume because of your bigotry I am a stupid westerner ignorant of dharma. --Dseer 04:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sivananda's so-called "Biography" very poor source compared with Godman
The so-called "biography" by Sivananda is basically spam, more promotional of Sivananda and his opinion, and hardly comprehensive or accurate about the subject of this article. It contains very few details as compared with other more documented biographical sources, and some of the statements by Sivananda are actually erroneous, and it primarily is Sivananda's non-expert opinion based on very limited contact with Sri Ramana and his interpretation of Ramana's teachings. A link which provides no new factual information, only suspect and non-expert opinion, and whose primary purpose seems to be only to promote that guru's opinion about Sri Ramana and that guru's opinions about other saints, and which is added solely to exclude what a recognized expert, David Godman, has asserted based on actual evidence, has no real value for this article. A western born and published expert like David Godman, recognized as such by the Ashram itself (and endorsed by those like V. Ganesan, Sri Ramana's Grand Nephew, an Editor Of "The Mountain Path" Journal, and Author of the following books about Sri Ramana: "Purushottana Ramana", "Be The Self" and "Moments Remembered"), should not be rejected in favor of the valueless commmentary by Sivananda based on a editor's bigoted assertion that David Godman is "christian" and "semitic", and thus incapable of understanding Sri Ramana. This Sivananda link will be deleted without further discussion if attempts are made to add it again. --Dseer 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Explanation of my reverting of Bharatveer's reverting of Dseer's edit: This article is intended to be a carefully researched, accurate account of Sri Ramana Maharshi and his life and teaching. That is why the editors who have been working on this article recently were so grateful when David Godman showed up here. He has done an enormous amount of research on Sri Ramana, and is in a unique position to show us where we have allowed inaccuracies to creep into the article. He worked for years running the library at Sri Ramanasraman, and spent untold hours hearing the accounts of such devotees as Annamalai Swami, so Mr. Godman is ideally suited to help with the article, bringing a rare level of expertise.
 * I have deleted the Sivananda link because it adds no value to the article. The biography on the wikepedia page is a much more carefully researched, detailed, and accurate biography, so there is no reason to provide a link to a shorter bio that contains the unsourced opinions of someone who was not a Sri Ramana scholar or expert. The link to Encyclopedia Brittanica contains no accurate information which is not in the Ramana Maharshi article, and, further, it contains some glaring factual errors. It adds no value whatsoever.
 * I would like to add that wikepedia is not a place to make disparaging remarks about other people’s religious or ethnic backgrounds. Let us place our focus on collaborating in creating a high-quality article on Sri Ramana. Fortunately for us, there is a wealth of information available about Sri Ramana. Let us search out the most accurate accounts and the highest quality sources and not stop until this article is truly outstanding.Iddli 08:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)