Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Advaita


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Appears to meet WP:N Wily D 15:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Advaita

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Does not meet wiki WP:GNG criteria and also with WP:SIGCOV, most of content are self published or from blogs, there has been no significant coverage in any media except for blogs , sources stated are either blatant hoax or not reliable according to Wikipedia policyShrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC). Some points to be noted:


 * 1) The editor is proclaiming wrong information as truth and referring to a source which does not say that e.g. 1st sentence of the article : ""Neo-Advaita is a term used by critics to designate a modern, western form of Advaita Vedanta in which the traditional prerequisites of knowledge of the scriptures"" :: ref to (Davis, Leesa S. (2010), Advaita Vedānta and Zen Buddhism: Deconstructive Modes of Spiritual Inquiry, Continuum International Publishing Group) page 48 ! here is the Google link of page, neo advaitha ? it talks about neo vedantins and not neo advaitha ??


 * 2) Using names of Ramana Maharishi,Vivekenanda & H. W. L. Poonja who in their lives or in writings have never even remotly used the word neo-advaita . Stating statements by the above authors and then naming it neo-advaitha does not make it reall!! (stating lies in-between truth) e.g. sun is round ,moon is round, America is round, Pluto is round.

-- Shrikanthv (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject meets GNG, while the article does need work, it is a clear keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * comment how does the subject meet GNG ? -- Shrikanthv (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

""Neo-Advaita is a term used by critics to designate a modern, western form of Advaita Vedanta in which the traditional prerequisites of knowledge of the scriptures and "renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga" have been discarded, and the inducement of direct experience is emphasized.""
 * Keep:
 * Article meets GNG: "", published by University of California Press, and accessible via JSTOR, is a field-research on neo-Advaita, describing the origins of neo-Advaita. See Neo-Advaita for quotes.
 * Notability: Eckhart Tolle is a well-known teacher, selling millions of books. Andrew Cohen is a widely disputed teacher, who started as a neo-Advaitin. Both are mentioned in journals and magazines. This is not a hoax.
 * First sentence:


 * Notes


 * Book-references


 * Web-references


 * Sources




 * Davis p.48 says: "This shift away from traditional emphasis on knowledge of the Vedas and renunciation as necessary preparation for the path of jnana-yoga".
 * "Using names of Ramana Maharishi,Vivekenanda & H. W. L. Poonja who in their lives or in writings have never even remotly used the word neo-advaita . Stating statements by the above authors" - there are no statements by these teachers on neo-Advaita. Even a superficial reading of the article makes this clear. The term is used by critics of western Advaita-teachers who emphasize sole insight, bypassing preparation and practice.

-- Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I praise your hard work, but being the intention of wiki GNG concerned, the two main links you portray as references are: 1)^ Marek 2008, p. 10, note 6. , IS a work of diplomant in vienna , It cannot have weigablity as a good source as it is work of a student which still has not been corrected by the university itself ? , and definetly as the student potrays in his thesis it is a maybe. 2)^ Jacobs 204, p. 82. this source is really skeptical as nothing is written about publisher or the author and is only found in a private website and cannot be considered as source from books reference as this may be self created notes for the website and nothing more. 3)Davis 2010, p. 48.Yogani 2011, p. 805. The above links are not concerned with neo-advaitha 4)external sources : ^ Timothy Conway, Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality; ^ James Swartz, What is Neo-Advaita? I believe this sources are dubious as the are personnel websites promoting there concepts. -- Shrikanthv (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ad4. advaita.org.uk seems to me like more than just "promoting concepts". --Joshua Jonathan (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reaction by Joshua Jonathan The main link I give is Phillip Charles Lucas, published in an academic jurnal. Gleig is a PhD-thesis. You may not like it, but it's clear that there is a neo-advaita movement in The USA and Europe, and that it's being critisized. Ad1. What's the "maybe"? Ad2. Jacob's article was published in the journal of the sriramanamaharshi.org. Of course I may be mistaken, but this seems to me to be as closely connected to Ramana Maharshi as possible. Ad3. Davis 2010 p.48 is about Ramana Maharshi and Poonja, indeed, not about students of them. Not exactly a consolation, is it?. Yoganini explicitly mentions Neo-Advaita at page 805: "I say "neo-Advaita" because if we dig a bit we will find that the great Advaita and jnana yoga teachers clearly recognized the role of the witness, bhakti, and yoga practices. Neo-Asvaita is prone to strip it all down to the bare logic and expect that to be a viable stand-alone practice". (Yoganini, p.805)"


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)




 * Strong keep! No doubt it meets GNG. Also, even though several of the neo-advaita teachers have their own article, there are so many more of them. They all have a common ground. Deleting this article would mean no WP coverage of this form of teaching that has influenced so many people.  Lova Falk     talk   12:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete  (see below) - The article lead reads, "Neo-Advaita is a term used by critics ... ." As noted in Wikipedia is not a dictionary, "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." The terms reliable source use seems limited to What Is Enlightenment? (magazine) and Journal of Church and State. Significant coverage: What is Enlightenment? September 1, 2006. Other source material: What is Enlightenment? December 31, 2001, What is Enlightenment? December 1, 2005, Journal of Church and State January 1, 2006 (where footnote 22 explains, "The teachings of Sri Ramakrishna are based on Advaita Vedanta. Advaita, meaning nondualism, is one of the three schools of thought in Vedanta which in turn is one of the six orthodox systems of Indian Philosophy. Both Ramakrishna and his chief disciple Swami Vivekananda, particularly the latter, popularized an all-inclusive, syncretist version of Advaita Vedanta and taught that it is a valid means of attaining Truth that is available to the followers of all religions, including Islam and Christianity. This openness of approach and interpretation was meant to bring about the "harmony of all religions" and is an innovation that traditional Vedanta does not emphasize. Hence the claim that they follow "neoadvaitabad" or neo-Advaita."). I accept Shrikanthv's review of the other references noted in this AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the additional references.
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary also says: "Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history." It's clear that the article is about a new religious movement, not about the exact meaning of a specific word.
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary also says: "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few largely or completely synonymous or otherwise highly related topics[3]), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well. An encyclopedic definition is more concerned with encyclopedic knowledge (facts) rather than linguistic concerns." The article provides additional background information on the origins of this movement, and places it in the modern cultural exchanges between western and Asian cultures.
 * The exact wording of the lead may be changed ("Neo-advaita is a term used by critics/is a modern interpretation of Advaita Vedanta which is critisized"); the point is that there are a lot of western Advaita-teachers who emphasize self-inquiry, disregarding other aspects of Advaita. This movement, and this criticism, has been noticed by above-mentioned sources.
 * Lucas (article in a scientific journal), Gleig (PhD-dissertation), and Jacobs (article in the MountainPath, published by the Sri Ramana Ashram) are being ignored in this review. Regarding the additional info, situating neo-Advaita in western discoures: Brown is published in an academic journal; Gombrich, McMahan and Sharf are book-publications by academics.
 * Recapitulating: at least three different Advaita-related organisations (Sri Ramana Ashram, advaita.org.uk and Andrew Cohen's What Is Enlightenment) mention neo-Advaita in several articles and on several webpages; several academics have conducted research on neo-Advaita; and neo-Advaita can be placed in a broader cultural development, which has been going on for more than a century and influences popular culture in many ways. My conclusion is that neo-Advaita is notable, and the article is based on reliable sources.
 * Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: I noticed that you do a lot of work on Afd's. My apologies for the slight sarcastic undertone I put in my comment; I've changed the tone. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. I didn't see the slight sarcastic undertone anyway. I think the big problem here is the article's focus still is on Neo-Advaita being a "term". When that is done, the topic falls under the difficult neologisms requirement. I think if you instead merely summarized what the reliable sources say about the topic (e.g., "representative survey of the relevant literature"), you can avoid the difficult neologisms requirements and get better results at AfD. The negative tone of the article is off putting, the excessive write up on "Advaita Vedanta" which is not the topic of the article, and the article's detailed reliance on sources that may not be Independent sources - sources that are independent of the Neo-Advaita topic - are a problem. Reading the lead of the Neo-Advaita article, I still don't know what Neo-Advaita is. The Advaita Vedanta article isn't much better. I added a sentence to Advaita Vedanta at the top to try to explain what it is. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I changed the lead so that the topic no longer is about a neologisms. The rest of the article should be rewritten in a history section with any criticism etc. chronogically intermixed with the rest of Neo-Advaita's history. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this mean that we have reached consensus to keep the article?  Lova Falk     talk   18:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to closer - Basically, the issue is what name to give to the Wikipedia article. What is going on is you have is thousand year old Advaita Vedanta religion (traditional Advaita Vedanta in India with three requirements (1. reading, 2. renunciation, and 3. meditation experience) and 100 year old Neo-Advaita religion (Advaita Vedanta lite in the west which focuses on 3. meditation experience). Advaita Vedanta lite practicers would claim that they are practicing traditional Advaita Vedanta whereas traditional Advaita Vedanta's would say Advaita Vedanta lite in the west is not Advaita Vedanta because they don't do as much 1) reading and 2) renunciation as traditional Advaita Vedanta in India. Traditional Advaita Vedanta then want to call Advaita Vedanta lite in the west "Neo-Advaita" whereas Advaita Vedanta lite practitioners would want to refer to their practice as Advaita Vedanta, which is where Wikipedia comes in. Both traditional Advaita Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta lite are two separate topics that each meet WP:GNG. The disputes would be 1. what to call the Advaita Vedanta lite article and 2. what information makes up Advaita Vedanta lite topic to include in the Advaita Vedanta lite/Neo-Advaita article. AfD isn't set up to address either and those are different issues from that decided at AfD. I don't think there any pro-Neo-Advaita editors writing in Wikipedia, so the Neo-Advaita article is more negative due to Wikipedia participation by traditional Advaita Vedanta editors but there is no actual dispute between Wikipedia editors. The Neo-Advaita article seem to include an effort to "prove" Neo-Advaita is the name of the western version of Advaita Vedanta, which is original research. There are some source material using Neo-Advaita and the 100 year old Neo-Advaita religion is a topic that meets WP:GNG, so it seems reasonable to use "Neo-Advaita" for now until something better comes along. In short, keep Neo-Advaita at AfD and any disputes in the future can be handled some place besides AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the topic is even more complicated: there is neo-Vedanta (Vivekananda and others), which originated in India but incorporated western influences, which emphasizes meditation c.q. nivikalpa-samadhi, and there is neo-Advaita, which took over Advaita Vedanta teachings but is basically a western movement. There are pro-Neo-Advaita editors, and yes, they do object the lable "Neo-Advaita". But the term is also being used by scientific researchers. And anyway, it's fascinating how the interplay between western colonialism and Asian cultures resulted in a complex amalgam of ideas, both in Asia and in the west. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.