Talk:Ramesh Balsekar/Archive 1

Page needs work
ok.... this page neeed some work.... let's make it an article instead of a big quote. I will start trasnlating the quotes into a description of what he teachers. Sethie 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The quotes removed have taken out the flavour of his actual teaching, replacing it with a generic teaching of that school which isn't really a good presentation. I'll try to bring the flavor of them back in, without the full length. FT2 (Talk 09:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of inner quest webpage
Sethie does not know if that the webpage in question is strong enough to be considered a source to cite within the article, however they look like a respectable company [] and used to organize tours to see Ramesh. They have some very clearly voiced criticisms and concerns, which Sethie thinks warrants a clearly labeled external link. Sethie 01:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Inner Quest is not an impartial source. They are husband and wife owners of a book shop based in Paris who appear to have their own agenda. Theirs is the only published allegation of impropriety regarding Mr. Balsekar. They have also published the words of a Mr. Conway who has used opposition to Mr. Balsekar as a platform to espouse his own philosophy. None of it is fact-based as Wikipedia is meant to be.


 * Sethie agrees that it does not meet WP:RS that is why he did not cite it and use it as a refference. However, critical sites are often put into the EL section of articles. The fact that they own a company, and used to do tours with him easily qualifies them as more then a blog, and justifies inclusion in the EL section.


 * Please, look around at other spiritual teachers/groups and study up on the External Links section- there is a different standard then using a citation. Sethie 00:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Sethie. That the self-appointed Balsekar has been criticized for behavioral indiscretions by reputable sources, including the published author Conway, is fact, and that is separate from whether the allegations are actually true, which is not required to be proven. These allegations have been widely reported, for just one example, meaning they are taken seriously by others. Impartiality is not the standard for criticism, and in any case followers of Balsekar are also not impartial. Claims of a "smear campaign" are suspect, libelous, POV, and fail to address the issues raised by critics. --Dseer 02:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

DSeer reveals agenda with the statement "self-appointed Balsekar." The only criticism for behavioral indiscretions are the ONE by Inner-Quest and Conway. Links on http://www.spiritualteachers.org/sri_nisargadatta_maharaj.htm and other sites are to this ONE source. There is NO other allegation. This is not criticism, this is unproven accusation from a single source and has no place in Wikipedia. Sethie's statement that Inner Quest used to do tours with Ramesh is incorrect. They used to independently send people to visit Ramesh but were never part of any formal or informal association with him. Oneisthetruth 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The innerquest link is now dead, so I have removed that criticism.

Also I reviewed the source provided for

All it says is that "A major critique of neo-Advaita as "pseudo-advaita" has been delivered by Alan Jacobs (a former proponent for certain neo-Advaitins like Ramesh Balsekar".

It makes no mention of their being any controversy with his lineage.

I am open to their being criticisms... and they must meet WP:RS. Sethie (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The criticisms by Conway come from multiple sources and are far more extensive and well researched than the Balsekar advocate here implies. Furthermore, Conway is a respected author and spiritual authority, and thus meets the expert criteria required for substantive criticism of both Balsekar's claims of successorship despite lack of evidence Nisargadatta appointed him and significant inconsistencies with Nisargadatta's teaching, and his behavior. Even Wayne Liquorman acknowledges an incident of what most would consider impropriety while excusing it and there is nothing in Balsekar's teaching that makes the story implausible nor has Balsekar taken any action against Conway. Again, all I have to do is show that there is a reliably sourced controversy, I do not have to prove the allegations are true, only that they are sourced. There is no agenda other than that of presenting a balanced article rather than an advocate attempting to mischaracterize and suppress sourced criticism and create a promotional piece. We report, it is up to the reader to decide, not based an advocate's censorship criteria. --Dseer (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For now, I am fine with the link you put in.


 * Please note, the link you added is not the link I removed.


 * I removed this link: []


 * You responded by adding in this link. ]


 * :) I may or may not be a Balsekar advocate! I'm not sure. I'm not sure if that comment was directed at me?


 * I am however a "good link advocate!" Sethie (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ramesh Balsekar.jpg
Image:Ramesh Balsekar.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Conoway as a Source
I am in agreement that WP:BLP forbids the use of this source while Ramesh is still alive. Sethie (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

controversy on Ramesh
this article seems to be very selective and does not take into account other sides of Ramesh Balsekar and his biography, that are important for readers to form an unbiased view. There is a great deal of controversy on his teachings and behavior. This should be mentioned in the wiki article. At the very least, the sources below should be mentioned.   Incogni (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, after reading Conway's materials, it should be added to this article. Will do so now. -47.220.46.75 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)