Talk:Ramakrishna/Reception draft discussion

Sen

Based on the JSTOR analysis, it would be better to remove Sen and add more and better quality material on Kakar. (JSTOR says he's more important than Kripal, coming in just under Muller) ~~He has written an essay on the Kathamrta ("The Kathamrita as text") that everyone (both Kripal and his academic detractors) says is important, but which I have not been able to get ahold of.~~ (oops, that was Sarkar.) — goethean ॐ 12:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the text on Sen. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More needed

Predictably, Nvineeth has added more negative material to the Kripal section. Now there is too much on Kripal. More is needed in the Muller, Isherwood and Rolland sections. Muller and Rolland in particular are scholars of giant historical importance in the Ramakrishna academic debate. There have been articles written which don't refer to Kripal, but few have been written that don't refer to these two. Plus Muller and Rolland are favorites of the devotees, which always helps in having material accepted by the reading and editing communities. We either need to add a couple of sentences each to Muller and Rolland's views on SRK or remove the 2nd Hawley quotation. — goethean ॐ 13:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Nvineeth's addition and re-did the Kripal text. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isherwood quotation

I did have a long quotation from Isherwood which flatly contradicts Kripal's thesis and says that Ramakrishna had transcended sexuality, but I removed it for fear that the entire section would be rejected due to having too much sexual content. If editors support inclusion of the Isherwood quotation, I support putting it back in. — goethean ॐ 13:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I courageously added it back in. — goethean ॐ 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muller's SRK = bhakta?

In trying find a citation that Muller painted SRK as a vedantin, I came across an article which claims that Muller interpreted SRK as a bhakta. [1] Review: [untitled] R. J. Zwi WerblowskyReviewed work(s): Ramakrishna et la voie de l'amour by Carl-A. KellerNumen, Vol. 46, No. 4 (1999), pp. 449-450 — goethean ॐ 13:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completed. — goethean ॐ 20:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To do:

~~Muller's SRK: Vedantin or bhakti?~~

Ramakrishna?

...or Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa Dev? Slashes in titles are deprecated.--Wetman (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a temporary sandbox, housing a proposed addition to Ramakrishna. — goethean ॐ 20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably its a good idea to discuss on the main talk page, since I doubt that this page exists on the watch list of other editors. Thanks --Nvineeth (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]