Talk:U. G. Krishnamurti/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Death

Heard through the grapvine that U.G. is no more. He's gone everyone. -Osmosys —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.65.90 (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Louis Brawley his caretaker emailed the information to myself and some people that knew U.G. Hopefully Mahesh will be able to give the exact details about what happened to the body. - Osmosys

The newspaper probably isn't going to cover this one. There's a slim chance there might be something in Switzerland, but otherwise forget it. I got the email from his caretaker. Believe me it's true. U.G. is gone. Sorry I can't give you guys an "encyclopedic source", but you can always go ask Louis or Mahesh. -osmosys

Rumors persist that U.G. never left Italy. Exact details are coming.

U.G. is still alive as of March 22nd, but he is on his death bed. The communication that he wanted to go to Switzerland was true, but he never went. -osmosys

this is why i love wikipedia. anybody can say whatever the hell they want, and present it as "fact".Mr.e-i-b 23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you UG for your tough love. 67.183.19.64 19:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)novon

Check out the sites www.ugkrishnamurti.org and www.ugkrishnamurti.net. U.G. has passed away on March 22.Maziotis 19:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is true he's gone now! Sorry for the confusion, but he was on his deathbed for 10 days and it was dragged out, and there was misinformation. -osmosys

making the article consistent

Also, in "Yet, he claims, and is said by some people to be "enlightened"" is not correct. I haven't read any statement of his where he says he is enlightened, only the oposite. This statement is also contradicted near the end of the page, "He swiftly gained a reputation as an enlightened person, though he always refused the label".

This text was also added to this wikipage at one point, and removed, since it replaced almost all of the previous text, but is very pertinent, because it sumarizes the main part of U.G.'s philosophy. Perhaps it could be reworked and inserted into the main text?:

"The main theme which emerges from the discussions with him is the impossibility and unnessecity of any human change, radical or mundane. U.G. repeats endlessly that the body and its actions are aldready perfect, and attempts to change or mold the body or its actions are pure and simple violence. The psyche or self or mind, an entity which he denies has any being, is composed of nothing but this demand to bring about change in either the material or in itself. The human self-conciousness is not a thing, but a movement, one characterized by perpetual malcontent and a "fascist" insistence on its own importance and survival."

I went ahead, and changed the page like I commented here. The only problem now could be that the language between this paragraph and the next on the wikipage are differently-styled. I think it is the next paragraph that should be re-worded and re-worked, but as it stands is also ok, I guess.

-- anon


I wonder if there is any corroboration of UG's meetings and dialogues with J Krishnamurti I cant recall having seen UG's name mentioned in any of the biographies of JK. Malcolm

I have added citations for the quotes. -- vishvas

the citations re: the meetings with jiddu krishnamurti are all from a single source, i.e. ug himself. i believe poster "malcolm" is implying there's no third party corroboration of these discussions, as cited in the article. Mr.e-i-b 17:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Still POV problematic

If the article specifically reads like a hagiography, which it does, it needs cleanup. Period. I would rewrite the article, but I have little to no doubt that you would cheerfully redact it, just as you have with the talk page. V. Joe 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as arbitration in the Wikipedia? If there is, please let me know.

--vishvas

POV/Third Opinion/Arbitration

Wikipedia does have an arbitration policy, although it puzzles me as to what you would like to have arbitrated. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Arbitrate away, I suppose. This article is, and remains a POV problem, and I'll edit it when I get around to it, I suppose V. Joe 18:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have sought third opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements) about the aptness of associating the POV-problem tag with this article. Vishvas vasuki 04:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Vishvas

Third opinion. The lead and introduction are definitely POV. I have added some inline messages to specify particular problems, but fixing these alone will not make the article NPOV. I suggest you read WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone and WP:NPOV#Characterizing opinions of people's work. Grouse 13:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I now see that it indeed deserves an POV-problem tag. Vishvas vasuki 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

why wiki-hinduism?

it is my understanding, reinforced by reading the article, that u.g. krishnamurti does not consider himself, neither cares whether other people consider him, a hindu, a religious persona in general, or even just a person with a certain message. why then include him under the "hinduism" project? why the labeling/pigeonholing? it is true that he was born a brahmin, but that's like saying "he used to live in such and such address". well, now he's moved, and that's no longer an issue. the idea that some of what he says are common concepts of hinduism is irrelevant. people will often find commonalities where they look for them. he clearly states in several places in published works that he is who he is despite his heritage/experiences.

65.88.88.126 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)pka


well, the wiki hindu bar has not been added to the article, so I really don't see where is the problem. The hindu project banner in the wiki discussion page just means that the developlment of the article concerns people envolved in hinduism.Maziotis 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't see the link with hinduism at all. it's one thing to say that ug was born into a certain culture and nation. it's another to make him even peripherally a part of it. he has made it clear in numerous occasions that he has nothing to do with all that. putting him under the hinduism banner is actually just another opinion by a third party, which runs contrary to the way the subject perceives himself. i think that this is unfairly pigeonholing him.Mr.e-i-b 18:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the template. Adding that template had nothing to do with the subject of the article, but with the article itself. Adding project templates to articles is merely a means of actively seeking collaboration from interested editors. Please keep that in mind.TheRingess 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
understood. the question remains, why would people interested in hinduism be more actively sought to collaborate here than say, bird-watchers? i think it probable that ug has been in close proximity of a bird. what i'm really asking is, what is the criteria by which the wiki hinduism template was included in this article.Mr.e-i-b 17:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm...well it was my own criteria. In other words, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Keep in mind that the article can belong to multiple projects. At the very least it belongs in WikiProject Biography. Probably it also belongs in WikiProject India. It can't hurt to belong to WikiProject Hinduism. I'll leave it up to other interested editors to add it appropriate projects.TheRingess 20:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

i see that another user has also added the "modern dharmic writers" template to this article. this is getting out of hand. there are few categorizations that can be said to be objectively neutral: categorizing alphabetically for instance. or putting an article having to do with the life and times of a person under the biography banner. or categorizing geographically according to place of birth or chronologically according to date. imo, anything else, is editorializing, and should be addressed as such. when you insert the template in question, you imply that ug (the subject) has some relation to it. that's only an opinion. at least user TheRingess above had the grace to admit as much regarding the hinduism template.Mr.e-i-b 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, there's a lot more serious issues with this article than the templates. TheRingess (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

that to me is irrelevant. i'm only discussing the applicability of templates and neutrality of classification in this section. agreed that there are major other issues with this article, but whether they are more serious than the templates is also a matter of opinion.Mr.e-i-b 17:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You say potato, I say potato. TheRingess (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
whatever. from the wiki-hinduism template: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism". where do you see anything "dealing with hinduism" in the article or the life of the subject to warrant this? just the fact that he was born a hindu is not enough. shouldn't classification decisions be made intelligently rather than just blindly assigning templates just because 1)it's easy and 2)the word "hindu" is in there?Mr.e-i-b 15:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction quote

I don't think the current intro quote in the beginning of the article is in any way representative of U.G. thought or what he generally transmits. It is just a collection of contradictory sentences that do not help the visitor to this article to have a first understanding of him. There may not be such a thing, but in that case it would be best not to put anything. I suggest we either put something more consistent, like a full quote that was actually said by U.G. himself, or we abstain from saying anything at all.Maziotis 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Super. You find it! Grilledegg 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How about the "nothing" thing? It strikes me as the best representative, since the man himself does not hold a single thought as representative of anything. I say we live the first part of the article to the bio, exclusively. It is, after all, the criterion that we use for any other individuality on wikipedia. Selecting quotes is always somewhat POV, and for that it is usually left to the end of the article.Maziotis 21:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Grilledegg 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When I said "nothing", I meant to say nothing at all. But I guess this one somehow amounts to that....Maziotis 22:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it is not like UG has ever said that the words "i have no message for mankind" represent who he is. I think it would be best to avoid what could be described as being "creative", since this concerns an encyclopedic article.Maziotis 23:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the quote I've seen used most often, but it's okay the way it is now...Grilledegg 08:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

May I simply say that it someone has cleaned this article and shown the man the respect he earned. For months it lied all messed up with what I call a cynical 'citation needed attack' interspersed throughout. Thankyou whoever it was. It looks good now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.68.143.209 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Grilledegg did a nice job cleaning things up. It is much better the way it is now.Maziotis 13:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


NPOV

This does not make it true, and in the case of Mr. Krishnamurti, cannot be true. If it were true, there would be no article. A guru who says he is not a guru is still a guru, especially if he is followed around by acolytes who record his every word.

Whatever other faults there may be in the article, to simply avoid being obviously inaccurate, the first line should, at least, be changed (my changes in capitals)to read: "Uppaluri Gopala Krishnamurti, better known as U.G. Krishnamurti, or just U.G., SAYS HE is not a guru or a teacher or a philosopher or any kind." [by the way, this is the first time I've done this. I hope I have followed correct form]

-- Joe Harijan

I am going to implement the above good suggestion, and remove the "neutrality is disputed" tag since the trigger for that tag is being invalidated herewith.

-- vishvas

The original notice said: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons says that the article must have the following qualities: 

   * Verifiability
   * Neutral point of view
   * No original research

I have added citations for all controvertial quotes. I have removed the "philosophy" section because it contained original research. I have removed the NPOV tag from the article and this (discussion) page.

-- vishvas

again, please remove the NPOV tags and this whole section, as these concerns seem to have been met.

-- anonymous

[User:Valentinejoesmith]had added the NPOV tag without a suitable entry in the "discussion" page. His criticism, when contacted by email was as follows: "To place it simply, this article does not seek to adopt a NPOV. I added the tag merely because of what others had writ, which I throughly agree with. I also feel that the tone of the article is rather obviously unenclyopedic and gives undue weight to those that agree with " U.G." "

The following has been my response to him: I just visited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . This is written there: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly."

Now, where pray tell am I to find "conflicting views"? I have not seen any in popular press. If you say that there have been conflicting views, I suggest that you add a "Criticism" section to the article with that information. Just make sure, however that you source them from a work which, as the NPOV wiki article puts it, "have been published by a reliable source. "

For now, I shall remove the NPOV tag from the article, and will publish a summary of this conversation in the "Talk" page, as this discussion is of general interest. For clarity's sake, I suggest that you use the talk page henceforth when you make changes. Others' valuable suggestions in the talk page have been satisfactorily dealt with. If you disagree, please elaborate.

If you think tone of the article is "rather obviously unenclyopedic", I suggest that you help either rectify it, or please be accurate by using a more appropriate tag. Whereas this article is obviously not "best article" material, the tone alone does not warrant a NPOV tag.

--vishvas

Discuss the article here

if i may, i'd like to suggest that several of the comments in this section, including the ones by "osmosys" and the "THINKER" do not belong to the NPOV section, as they have nothing to do with the methodology of the article in question, but instead question, or interpret, the subject of the article itself, ie ug krishnamurti. -- unnamed person.

I have accordingly removed those comments. The talk page is meant for discussions about the article, not about the subject. --vishvas


Leave Comments Here

At least he has a sense of humor, Jiddu:if the house is burning what shall you do? U.G. pour gasoline on it, hope something good rises from the ashes. Ive read a few jokes from jiddu that were just god-awful

It's amusing to watch people fight over these definitions of a man that destroys every attempt to define who he is. -osmosys

ya, i've heard lots of criticism against him, as being a fake guru, an unenlightened person parading around spiritual teachings, like Osho... is it true?

Jesus..you seem to be enlightened man !! First do you have any idea what enlightenment is ?? Is there a thing called elightenment ?? And if suppose there is ...does a method exist to verify that ?? Are you enlightened ?? And if some comman sense is still out there in you sir - one will never be so irresponsible and would not come out with such stupid comments on all these or any matter !!

rakesh

-- You're asking if he's a fake enlightened? Well, from what I understand, he's saying that all gurus and elightened men are fakes. I've never "followed" gurus or enlightened men, so I can't really say how genuine an article this one may be.


-- He has no reason to fake anything because he has no teaching. People ask him questions, and he gives them answers that is all. Of course they always ask more questions because as he would put it, "the questions you are asking are born out of the answers you already have".

When people say he has a teaching it is only because they are asking the same questions over and over, and he is only telling them the same thing over and over.

Eventually some get the joke, and they just lose it.

-osmosys


Style cleanup

I have cleaned up the page by following the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style" guidelines on presenting comments. I have also removed the "article cleanup" tag. Please reinsert it if you see some specific thing which can be done to improve the article's compliance with wikipedia standards. --vishvas

Loss of citation integrity due to carelessness of IPSOS

Krishnamurti, U.G. (2001). Mystique of Enlightenment Part One (Third ed.). Retrieved 2007-09-05. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
The above information is the information required for the footnote or numbered reference list. I endeavoured to repair error and have left my insertion in state, to no benefit or ill. Unfortunately, this advanced citation skill is at present beyond my ken. The error is still evident and in need of a fixative as per red text. Walking my talk in Beauty B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

U. G. Krishnamurti image

I removed the other images as it didn't have the copyright information. I got permission to use this image from the creator, so don't delete as of yet until OTRS has their say. I've forwarded the confirmation email to them. --Kolrobie 11:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the Criticism section

I removed it, as it added nothing new or relevant. UG thought that people such as Osho were crooks. Osho disagreed, and thought of UG as a crook in so many words. Big deal. There is no use for criticism in a bio entry anyway. The entry is about UG as a person, not a semi-academic examination of whatever philisophy he was expounding (if any) - except as ancillary to his personality and life. There's no need about a "balanced" entry that has to include blame, praise, and everything in between. Because every editor has a different sense of balance. It also doesn't matter whether or not he was lifting wholesale from Jiddu K. This is about what UG did and said, and he never claimed authorship, originality or ownership. These are attributes others attach to him or subtract from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Disagree. I restored the criticism section and it is also found on many bio entries. It is wishful thinking to somehow imply that U.G. was above criticism, either regarding his life or his teachings. It may not matter to you, but lifting wholesale from other sources is called 'plagarism'. That he never claimed ownership might have very well been a ploy to avoid lawsuits. For a guy who did nothing but criticise others, I am sure he could withstand a few sentences of criticism.

71.103.107.131 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Guess what, this is not a forum about your (or anyone's) like or dislike of UG. It's his bio entry. What his perceived faults or perceived "greatness" and importance was, it's up to the readers to decide. The article is already overlong and full of POV. Now you add your own POV - in case I haven't made it clear, any notion of "balance" is a POV. Whatever you think about "ploys" and plagiarism are also POV and don't justify adding the section. The article does give some info about what UG was about. You just have to take him or leave him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


Bull. I was the one who added the criticism section. If you think this article is a bio entry, I have a bridge to sell you. Most of the article is about U.G's meetings with philospohers (Ramana and JK) and his views and what he thought of their teachings. Hardly a bio entry. U.G's own 'experience' was compared to J.K's description no less! You have every right to be a U.G devotee and dislike any criticism, but you must confine yourself to your own web site in that case. Readers can decide for themselves which is why counterpoints are necessary. Censorship is dead. Wake up and smell the coffee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.110.66 (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ofcourse it's his bio entry. The reason a lot of it covers his meetings with others is because that's what he did, for decades. The reason it covers his impressions of them is because that's what preoccupied him and led him to formulate whatever it is he came up with. The article (a work in progress) represents his so-called "philosophy" without giving it any merit or demerit. The reason his "philosophy" is represented is because it is the only reason for this bio entry. The article also represents some of what is known to be the facts of his life, again without any judgement, pro or con, about said facts or the person of UG himself. It may come as a surprise to you, but readers do have the ability, if they care enough to research it, to form their own opinion about whether he was a saint, an idiot, argumentative, a con man etc etc without your "guidance". You are the one who wants to present opinions about him. Do it in YOUR website. The "criticism" section is as irrelevant as a "praise" or an "influence" section. It blows, and it goes. BTW, there's no "censorship", as you well know. Just removal of your and others' POV that's masquearading as relevant info. Also not censorship: removal of positive or negative (in your case) opinion of the subject that is camouflaged as supposedly "interesting" criticism of the subject by others. Finally I don't understand your problem with UG's quote about his state during JK's speech. Are you denying he made the quote? Are you saying that is irrelevant to the subject matter? Because these are the things that matter. Not its veracity, nor your opinion of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.214 (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Link in Notes No. 9

It does not work anymore, don't know why. The book I've quoted from is still online, this biography written by Mahesh Bhatt [1].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.89.218 (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text of the letter Krishnamurti left before leaving the Ramakrishna Mission: "7 September '63

My Dear Swamiji,

I have just been told by Maharaj that the eye operation has been a success and that you are well on your way to complete recovery, and that you will be returning to the Center in a week or so. This is very good news. And we are all looking forward to seeing you back at the Center ere long.

I would like to pay you a visit, but certainly not if this will in any way cause strain to you. If it isn't too much of a strain, it would give me great pleasure to see you at the Hospital, and you may be assured that it will be a very short one.

I wish to God I knew what hidden hand led me to the Center. When you suggested helping you out with some kind of editing work, I did not for a moment hesitate to fall in with your kind suggestion. What I did not know was that I would be having the most Blessed Moments of my life here at the Center. It is needless to add that it has been a great privilege to have associated myself with you, and I feel greatly refreshed both in mind and body.

That, however, apart, my continued stay here at the Center and the necessary atmosphere for alert and strenuous discernment in meditation have helped me tremendously. The hidden agony of my life which no human being could understand has dissolved itself into thin air, as it were, and this has awakened me to what may loosely be called a kind of spiritual sleepwalking. I have pulled myself out from what looked like the edge of an abyss.

You know that there are very rare occasions in the lives of most of us when we have brief experiences of existing beyond time. I too have had several such moments. But this has been more than fleeting and has indeed become an abiding certainty. Nevertheless the strains and stresses of adjusting myself to a whole new way of life resulted in a peculiar state of mind hedged with some kind of indolence, maybe a form of conceit, which only meant greater and greater sorrow but left with a kind of empty expectancy. I may have achieved a certain calmness, but that calmness was of death-producing languor. But I have always felt and still feel that one has to haul oneself out of one's own swamps by one's own bootstraps.

However, all my strenuous and directed attention hasn't helped me much to break the vicious circle. Well, now, through the touch of the inscrutable Divine power of Sri Ramakrishna, I have been blessed beyond words with the clarity of perception. And this calmness is a calmness without a trace of languor or contentment or watchful expectancy but one of completeness and wholeness. Need I say that when I burst forth into the world—the joy which overflows the heart is indeed bursting forth—I will be a new man?

With deep and affectionate regards,

Ever yours,

U.G. Krishnamurti" source [2], taken from the chapter Adrift in London.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.72.132 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we can cite part of the letter on the mainpage?


I have been editing the page for the past couple of weeks, mainly removing some flowery and subjective language more suitable to hagiographies. The article, long as it is, is incomplete ofcourse and far from inclusive, but that's a different apple. I don't object to the inclusion of the letter if you feel it necessary; however, you can just enter that UG was often inconsistent and contradictory, and sometimes damn near illogical, like everybody else. But even that would overlook the fact that the entry about his "philosophy" in the article is way too much skewered to the way UG presented himself to the world after age 49. That is, before the 1970s, nobody was calling UG the "anti-guru" etc etc. At least, not that I'm aware of. I don't think that the article articulates properly how his "philosophy" evolved from point A to point B, although such effort is attempted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.214 (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to point out what U.G. has said about the influence Ramakrishna has had on him, given the fact that there already is a quotation referring to Ramana Maharishi. I've always confused those two with one another; maybe because both of them are said to be worshippers of Divine Mother. Rereading the text given by Mahesh Bhatt, I noticed that there is a question mark, lacking in the small edition I had made about U.G.'s leaving the Ramakrishna Mission. I ought to change the text therefore, I have not done until now. Most probably it is not necessary to insert the complete text of his letter, I am not sure about that.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Now the link to note No.9 is okay again. Thank's.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.72 (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

describing UG

i don't know that it is fitting to describe ug as a philosopher or speaker. i also dont think we should use other peoples' impressions/quotes in the first paragraph. perhaps we could just reference the 'natural state' as he called it. shall i change it?

also i would think this artical needs more direct quotes, also is there a link to the relevant works on wikisource?

Rajpalrajpal (talk)

~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpalrajpal (talk • contribs) 00:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It's a biographical entry, not an exposition of UG's thought, which in any case is presented quite succintly, imo. No matter what UG was saying, we as editors have every right to categorize him with persons who did or concerned themselves with similar things. For the purpose of such categorisation, the content of his "non-philosophy philosophy" (how ironic - haha) is immaterial. He was a public speaker (did it for decades) and a self-styled philosopher even if he denied it. Secondly there are more than enough direct quotes. This is not a quote farm. There is a link to Wikiquotes by UG. Anyone can go over there and indulge all they like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

hi. i think its a misrepresentation. what you are saying is like saying that it is okay to give a tabloid representation to public figures. did he have a non-philosophy philosophy etc or was this the projection of those who wrote about him? likewise callng him a philosopher suggests he was talking from theoretical standpoint (e.g. like Kant) as opposed to talking from direct experience. i am concerned that the opening is giving the wrong idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajpalrajpal (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We have no way of knowing whether he was talking from "direct experience". And as the editor above said, these matters are not the purview of a wikipedia entry. As was posted above, we do have a right to categorize the subject for the purposes of wikipedia. UG was concerned and spoke at length publicly about matters that a sizable number of "philosophers" (religious and secular) have discussed since the beginning. Therefore, a "philosopher". His particular philosophy has no bearing in the way he's categorized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.121.243 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
If I may, I'd like to add that the article makes clear the broad outlines of UG's thinking. I think that an average person can tell for themselves by reading the article, whether UG's characterization as "philosopher" is literal, or just an adequate (but not perfect) fit for descriptive purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.121.243 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

UG's personality

I think a few things should be added about UG's personality, info cited/sourced to people who knew him well. There must be objective ways to do this without direct quotes proclaiming what a great man or what a low scoundrel he was. For example, I read a blog entry from somebody who knew him for years, and this person was describing how during the last years of his life UG was becoming senile, repetitive and obsessed with Krishnamurti. Also, others describe him as posturing, generous, preening, gentle etc etc often in the same sentence. I know there are many places one can find this info on the net. I just think that there must be a neutral way to add some of that in this entry. I would say as part of the "Post-Calamity" section, since that's when most people started knowing him and that's when he really came up expressing his philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.155.141 (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a short reference would be ok, but I see problems with the suggestion. It can easily degenerate into cheap psychoanalysis/personality analysis from a distance. Also it risks turning the article in an opinion and/or quote list. The reason UG has an entry is because of his latter-day philosophy, not because of his personality, which for a lot of people may come across as blunt and far from likable or charming. I don't know and cannot really determine to what degree his personality influenced his latter-day philosophy or vice-versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.130 (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on Godman's account

I am not here to defend U.G. I will not remove any critique about what his ideas can represent as a guru or philosopher, as the ones that are currently present at the article. ~

But the Godman's particular reference is totally out of context and misleading in the way it is being used. The fact that one (respectable) man has found strange, by his own experience, the testimonial of the article's subject is far from the necessity of we referencing in the article that "scholars are questioning this man's account". This is totally out of proportion. This things happen a lot and there can be no space for this kind of abuse of a source concerning a biography article.

The fact is that Godman was not present and there is nothing to suggest that his remark is nothing more than a personal opinion. Him being a scholar has got nothing to do with this incident, as in setting a counter-point for what happened. Don't try to make him more to be than what he himself could assume. Maziotis (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The person who keeps vandalizing the page does not understand. It is clear from the text that the incidents are from UG's standpoint ("According to UG", "UG related", "Maharshi purportedly said" etc etc). It doesn't matter whether UG's accounts are truthful or not. What matters is that they were instrumental (or UG claimed they were instrumental - same difference) in the development of his philosophy. Whether others dispute the meetings is irrelevant. The fact remains that UG didn't care (or said he didn't care - same difference) for any of these so-called "teachers". His account of the meetings is all part and parcel of his personality and his philosophy. As others have said, his philosophy is the reason for the entry. This continuing vandalism smells like an attempt of introducing a "criticism" section as discussed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.61.178.170 (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that even the reference is distorted. At best, we could write "The author Godman has raised questions concerning the veracity of UG's testimonial...". And this is inadmissible for an encyclopedic biography. You can raise questions concerning ideas, but this concerns the testimonial of an event, in which he was not even present. It's to vague, when the penalty might be calling someone a liar.

When it comes to suggest that someone made a mistake in reporting an event, either you have proofs that someone lied, or you present several testimonials of the people who were there (people remember things in different ways), or you have to drop the whole thing. I can't understand how this is not crystal clear for anybody.Maziotis (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Even a bio entry does not prevent differences about events from being mentioned. The bio aspect is simply the fact that U.G met Ramana. Nothing more. But this article goes far beyond that. Here we are presenting U.G's accounts, his interpretations of what it meant to him, how it affected his thinking, his life etc etc. David Godman is NOT anybody. He is a reputed author and scholar on Ramana and he has raised serious doubts about some of the things Ramana had supposedly said according to U.G. Same regarding his meeting with Papaji. Not mentioning these doubts raised by Godman gives readers the wrong information that U.G's accounts have been accepted in toto by all parties concerned. That would make it a pure propaganda article, under the guise of a bio entry. Adding the sentence does NOT mean it is a criticism of U.G or that he lied. May be even this is too much for U.G. devotees to stomach.

It might be of help to see other Wiki articles such as Martin Luther King or even J.Krishnamurti. In both cases, questions were raised well after their death and they had no way to defend themselves. Nevertheless, the allegations of plagarism and romantic affair have been mentioned in both articles. It hardly means they are being held guilty, but nothing is allowed to be brushed under the carpet. It only makes the articles richer. And it is a must under Wiki guidelines.

122.110.94.143 (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


To me, all that would make sense if only Godman were there! It would be a different person giving his testimonial on what happen. In that case, it wouldn't even matter if later we were to discover that there was an interest in Godman to lie, because he could nevertheless be telling the truth. But he wasn't there. And he isn't giving his critique as a scholar about an U. G.'s idea.
Please understand that for me this is not a question of "not agreeing with Godman" As far as I am aware, I believe I am defending Godman's position aswell. I'm really not sure Godman would agree with you using his reference the way you did. That's why I believe it is distorted. Who knows... maybe those two gurus were having a "day off" and Godman would agree with that thesis. This possibility would be in total clash with "question being raised about the events...". As it is, this is very misleading.
I have never seen anything like this in any article.Maziotis (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are stuck up on the notion that Godman or somebody had to be there. Well, this is not necessary for objective research. I have given examples of other pages on MLK and JK to name just two. They are far better articles by any measure (number of hits, being quoted etc). Your hypothesis is false since to begin with U.G. published his accounts after Ramana's death. So, by your logic, anybody who publishes after a person's death should be protected from any differing opinion from any scholar in the future!! Anyway, I am quite disgusted with the propaganda tone of the entire article and the way a couple of you dismiss any other reader's suggestion whether it be on UG as a philosopher, or havig a criticism section etc as can be seen from this discussion page. You can reproduce anything U.G says as gospel truth! You have made sure by your narrow bigotry that you can protect UG from any other point of view. Well, let us see how long it lasts.

58.111.30.239 (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you only reading the first sentences of my responses?
Look, let's get something straight. I would have no problem if Godman were to say, after UG had die, that he was a stupid, liar and hyporcrite who said this, that and that. I would have no problem in having something referenced in the article like that, given the proper relevance to that and the credible source. I have no problem to criticism to UG and pay attetion to what I am doing in the article. I am not a UG devoteee who rfemoves any negative remark of him in the article and, unlike what you say, you can find it.
The problem is that the reference YOU (not Godman's) made, or that you keep adding,is distorted. It references a questionning of an envent that took place from the point of view of someone who wasn't there. It is original research for which you cannot find relevance to include in the article.
The funny thing is that you keep saying that Godman was a scholar on Ramana and Papji, but the misunderstanding here may be related to the fact that he wasn't a scholar on UG, or simply that he didn't know him personally. He said that he found his testimonial to concer people out of character, when the problem may be that he was taking what UG said in the literal sense. It's a perfect human mistake to consider that has got nothing to do with Godman's curriculum. Maziotis (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if Godman was a "scholar" (haha) of/on UG, I don't see why he should be mentioned in the article. It's an encyclopedic entry, not a "scholarly", "repected" (hilarious) analysis. It's not an exposition of UG's theories that would necessitate critical enquiry. Do you want to know - encyclopedically, IN BRIEF - who UG was and what he said? Read the article. Do you want to know whether he was - this, that or the other? This is not the place. Look elsewhere and exercise your judgement.
The notion that JK and MLK "are far better articles by any measure" because of "number of hits, being quoted etc" is childish. Popularity is no measure of "betterness", especially on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that my argument wasn't that "Godman should not be included because he is not a scholar on UG". I was merely pointing out to the fact that there may have been a misunderstanding (that we as an encyclopedia are not in place of solving) due to the fact that this man (Godman) wasn't acquaintance with UG.
Just because in an argument I claim that being a scholar is not relevant in a particular issue doesen't mean that I am either dismissing scholarship as a whole or defending it.Maziotis (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no argument with that. But, to sidetrack a bit, if one is presented as a "scholar" of anything, they have to be prepared for more than casual scrutiny. They are implied "authorities" of some kind - at least for people who believe in, or need authorities. In my book they have to constantly and continuously earn the dubious distinction. Sure, somebody may have studied a subject in minute detail, and in all probability should therefore be able to form a better informed opinion. But it is STILL an opinion, no matter how well-informed or "respected" the person is. Also note I said "in all probability". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.46 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
And who said that the J Krishnamurti and King articles are good articles? They're overlong, bloated, and full of opinions, commentary, and original research. I couldn't care less how "respected" anyone is in any field since this is about a simple thing. The article is not about Godman's or anybody else's opinions or knowledge of what might have happened, and your believing it relevant. It's about what opinions UG held and his bio leading to them - not whether he was truthful, correct or anything else. Everything else definitely should be brushed under the nearest carpet. Go look under it on your own time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.1.55 (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


It seems that some people want to present differing opinions about UG, maybe because he insulted their favorite gurus or what not. As I have remarked previously this is not an analysis where pro and con arguments have to be presented. The article presents UG's ideas utilizing the person most suitable (UG himself). In order for the reader to gain an understanding of how UG arrived, or said he arrived, at this philosophy, certain pertinent supposedly biographical details are also presented, along with the basic bio generalities of places, dates etc etc. The language used in the article is neutral, and it neither endorses nor questions. There are plenty other forums to engage in critical discussion. This is not it. This is just a non-opinionated presentation. If you don't like UG, well, tough. Go somewhere else to vent. Same goes if you're a UG fanboy or girl and think the article engages in too much fence-sitting. Go worship elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

@Maziotis

Maybe that all his books are online, I don't know. Put them there, too.

like I put this one.

Austerlitz -- 88.72.30.86 (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Since a number of his books, including the one you're refering to, appear in Wikisource verbatim, I don't understand what is all the fuss about?? Btw, I invite any of you to help clean up this book on Wikisource as per the Wikipedia guidelines: [[3]]. Also needs to be added verbatim: "The Natural State". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.155.141 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find all his books at this website: http://www.well.com/user/jct/

This is from where you linked "courage to stand alone". Wether you believe this is the best book, or whatever, there is no reason to discriminate one in relation to the others. Either link most proeminent books on this site, or at least several, or point to this website (which is already done in the external links section). I think this is common knowledge. It was not my intention to be disruptive. Maziotis (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Books of U.G. online

Hello you, "(Removed duplicated, wholly unnecessary section. Please read the article before adding duplicate)": This section is better placed than yours, because being placed directly behind the print literature everybody understands that much of U.G.'s words can be read online. Do you agree with changing places?

Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.253 (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • [5] irrelevant entries?
Austerlitz -- 88.72.14.253 (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I agree with the removal. Right next to the bibliography is a Wikisource box that's pretty impossible to miss. A number of the books are in there, verbatim. Then there's the external link in the appropriate section clearly mentioning that the works are carried there in their entirety. Also, in the Wikiquotes entry there's a section (external links) that yet again redirects the reader to the site specified. How many more links do we have to have? If you've missed it, then you're probably NOT reading the article. Let's keep it tidy and concise.
As for the Cohen link. What has this to do with UG? It's about Cohen. This article is not a collection of anecdotes. Also, it is not about opinions of others regarding UG. How many times has to be explained that an encyclopedic entry is neither scholarly analysis, opinion survey, or anecdotal storytelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
As for the removal, please just have a look at the actual place of the resource site. It is toda and concise. If you still can't bear it, remove it again.
Obviously you can't bear it. I like the way I've put it better than the way you've put it. There is no logic about your way of putting it, it is just a question of liking.
Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.27 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
As for the Cohen link, there has been a better contribution concerning U.G. and Luna Tarlow, showing U.G. at work, so to speak. But it has been deleted , too. I'm going to restore it, and it does not go against encyclopedic entry.
Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.86 (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And why should we show "UG at work"? This is not UG's website. Neither it is Luna Tarlow's. Apparently you did not read what I commented on above?? To repeat, this article is not a collection of anecdotes. Also, it is not about opinions of others regarding UG. How many times has to be explained that an encyclopedic entry is neither scholarly analysis, opinion survey, or anecdotal storytelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnoted opinions in the "Post-calamity" section

I added 2 references in this section in order to source the text in some fashion. They are:

1. An opinion of UG

2. The global vagabond

Ofcourse they represent opinions. Since the section passage is about opinions on UG I felt these references were warranted. If you think it wrong to include them, even as footnotes, please make it known. I'm thinking of adding a further footnote to source the opinion of him as a "charlatan". Any suggestions? Assuming this footnote is a good idea, I've looked around, but it seems a lot of the negative opinions are from people with axes to grind, such as Osho etc. A lot of these opinions I have previously removed when part of the article body for reasons explained, and I definitely do not think they belong there. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be good, as long as they come from notable authors, and they make a specific point on how they feel "U. G. is a charlatan". I agree that Osho would be problematic in this context. Maziotis (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I don't know what a "notable author" is, and why any criteria for such characterisation would not be meaningless. We are talking about very elliptical philosophical/religious positions in this case. Also, within the statistically insignificant minority of the world's population that is interested enough on UG to actually form an opinion of him, there seem to be a disproportionate number of people who simply cannot take a neutral position. I chose the 2 references because they do not seem like an advocacy, though they are ultimately sympathetic. Note that the blogger mentions that UG in the end didn't seem to mind some kind of "hero worship". That is one of the reasons that prompted me to remove the text "UG always refused" (being called enlightened).
I see you also removed the reference with the opinion that UG was enlightened. Any comments? Again, the writer didn't strike me as a UG partisan, and I thought it a good idea to include one source for the article text. It was important to me that these sources were not "notable authors" who have something to sell, and a reputation to uphold. Just the average conflicted, uncertain person on the street, as it were.
Thanks again for the comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe I removed that source by mistake, while attemptng to make another change. As for the notable authors, I think that, by wiki guidelines, it would be best to reference someone who has published work, like OSHO (which we already pointed out it could be a mistake). We need to establish a certain level of credibility, so that at least we can be sure who says what. Maziotis (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will restore the reference that sources one of the 2 "extreme opinions", i.e. the enlightened part. We still need to find a suitable reference to source the other extreme, i.e. the opinion of him being a "charlatan". I still have a major problem with the statement that he ALWAYS rejected the enlightened label. It may as well be true; but at the same time we cannot possibly verify it, and it strikes me as defensive. His positions are described in the "Philosophy" section. There's no need to restate them elsewhere: this can result in undue emphasis of one position over another. To illustrate: How about if we add the statement "UG always accepted the charlatan label"? Or "UG always refused to answer the criticism"? I hope you see where I'm getting at. I say we remove the "always... etc" statement.
Both the references I chose are signed by the originators. They do not seem to be trying to push a viewpoint: they express opinions - and they are clear about theirs being opinions - in a common sense, civilized manner. The expression of these opinions does not confer their authors any special advantage or disadvantage. Furthermore, they are opinions that could be arrived at by any person interested in such matters - ie within the particular narrow subject they belong in the acceptable range of opinions one could hold. This is enough credibility for me. Unless you think that celebrity, position, or past publishing experience, somehow makes a "notable author's" OPINION on the matter of purely personal beliefs more credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

About the removal of the expression "(U.G. always refused the label)":

He spent a huge deal of his conversations, during his whole life, claiming to be an ordinary man. Read the books. If you are going to source the claim that some people think he is a charlatan, you can't leave that out under the pretext of not being a veriafiable fact, since the penalty here would be to possibly describe this man as someone who is preaching something he doesn't claim to be. We have to use some sense in keeping the article balance. It is already a big scratch to consider (as we are doing) the possibility that the whole "I am not special, I have nothing to say" is nothing but an act. Maziotis (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Where do you see that the article considers his stance an act?? Please give an example where the editorial content makes or implies such a point, then we can edit it out.
It states in the Philosophy section that he refused to be called a guru/enlightened and he did not consider himself one. Some people think he is, anyway, as they have every right to. Why do we have to point out again that he refused the label? Why the defensive tone? The particular passage is a hopefully very short reference of the 2 extremes of opinions on UG, not whether people should hold such opinions or whether UG might have disagreed.
I don't think we should have any arbitrary balance in the article at all. Imo, facts are what's needed, not balance. Are we going to leave pertinent facts out because they tilt the article too much in this or that direction? I also think that we should be as concise, brief and economical as we can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to that particluar point in the article. Since he considers that there is no such thing as enlightnment (and that he is not an enlightened man) I figure it is relevant when pointing out to the opinion that some hold that he is and others that he is a fraud. In contrast with most situtions such as this, the man himself is not claiming to be what the people on his good side consider him to be.

Everything you said about balanced and facts in the article as a whole, I agree. Maziotis (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like an apology for leaving the statement intact. As the 65.88.88 user pointed out, U.G. stated his piece in the philosophy section. The particular paragraph involved in the dispute is about the opinion of others. Since (very rightly) there is no commentary of U.G.'s opinions in the philosophy section, there should be no commentary on the opinions of others in the particular paragraph. The commentary sentence should stay off the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.194.1.4 (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm trying to shape an article that will ultimately seem biased to both UG sympathizers and UG detractors. When the opposing pro and con biases equally think the article is biased in favor of the other, I think we'll have hit on something interesting, that is, unbiased.
I don't think "unbiased" is something you can cook up and verify trought statistics. Maziotis (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to verify anything, nor am I using statistics (where do you come up with all these ideas?) I am well versed in UG's ideas, I just don't care about him either way. I care about having an unbiased article. The extremes of opinions on UG have been noted in the article, we have no business qualifying them by indicating how UG would or would not react to them. Out it goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about Statistics, but precisely your own personal impressions on the general feelings of people in these issues, to determine what is extreme and how to produce a "balanced" article.
PS: "When the opposing pro and con biases equally think the article is biased in favor of the other, I think we'll have hit on something interesting, that is, unbiased." From where do you get these formulas? Maziotis (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not a formula. The article, in its totality, cannot be pro and con at the same time. Therefore, when both sides simultaneously proclaim the article - in its totality - to be in favor of the other side, it is neither. If you know a demonstrably better, more objective criterion of non-bias, I will happily consider it. In the meantime it wouldn't hurt applying some common sense. And also pruning from the article positional statements ("UG always refused the label" {of being enligtened}) which as an editor noted, are in reality veiled rebuttals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't sound to me like common sense at all. You can have both sides thinking it is biased in favor of the other, and have an article that is a poor colection of insults coming from both sides.
As for the the "enligtened" remark, I don't see the point of you reminding me that another editor thinks differently. Either you have something to add or you don't. I explained the reasons for my own edit. Maziotis (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, you have to read more carefully. I said the article in its totality cannot be pro and con at the same time. If it's a collection of insults, it will show on the text. It is not. Apply common sense and you'll see this - or point the "insults" out. Do you have anything to add regarding keeping the article unbiased? All you are doing is adding bias by keeping the comment in question which gives undue emphasis to UG's position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
No, you are the one who has to read more carefully. I was referring explicitly to your idea that pro and con, in balanced proportion (and in the whole article), make up for each other. I totally disagree. You can have a collection of insults coming from opposite sides and that doesn't achieve a balanced, factual article. I am not necessarily saying that this is the case of the article as it is. What I was saying is that I disagree with that principle and I think that that solution you proposed would lead to a worst article.
Giving a more straight answer to your last argument, I am saying that an article can be neither pro as a whole or con as whole, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's unbiased and factual.
I believe the comment is a different issue from this, since I think it's factual and brings balance to the article.Maziotis (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
First, the comment isn't factual. You say it is. You, or anybody else, have no way of knowing whether UG "always" said anything. Secondly, the factual info that UG during some period of his life refused to be called enlightened is already in the appropriate place in the article, without rebuttal. As has been explained to you many times before, the section in question deals - in passing - with the opinion of others about UG. And that's it. Anything added to these opinions as "clarification" or "commentary", can, and does in this case, result in tilting the article towards a certain viewpoint. That is why it will be removed.
Where do you see that I said "pro and con, in balanced proportion (and in the whole article), make up for each other."??? See further up for my actual wording: "The article, in its totality, cannot be pro and con at the same time. Therefore, when both sides simultaneously proclaim the article - in its totality - to be in favor of the other side, it is neither. If you know a demonstrably better, more objective criterion of non-bias, I will happily consider it." I said nothing about balance or proportion, which are useless measures. All I have to know is that somebody who likes/agrees with UG finds the article in its totality incorrect/biased at the same time that somebody who dislikes/disagrees with UG has arrived at the same conclusion. So a "pro" person regards the article as not "pro". A "con" person regards the article as not "con". What is it then? Apply common sense. If you say that this criterion "doesn't necessarily mean it's unbiased and factual", well then what is your criterion of non-bias and fact? "Metaphysical" answers or answers of the type "there may be some unknown information we may or may not find out" - obviously - don't count. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, I believe I understand what you are saying, but I disagree and find that very much against common sense. Just because a person who likes UG, and a person who dislikes UG, both find the article biased in favor of the other, doesn’t mean that a person who is indifferent towards UG doesn't find the article biased towards one and the other at some point. If we want to have an objective article, we have to refrain from making uncyclopedic, moral judgments or engage in original research. We should not by any means seek the goal of having both people who like UG and people who dislike them, feel the article biased. People can judge that for themselves and no one can claim to have a special position of interest. As for me talking about "balance" and "proportion", that is just how I approach the concept of a clean article of original research. I understand that this represents a subjective view on things, and you can scratch them out if it feels uncomfortable.
As for the label on UG, in the post-calamity section, I am willing to discuss it with anyone. Maziotis (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Just because a person who likes UG, and a person who dislikes UG, both find the article biased in favor of the other, doesn’t mean that a person who is indifferent towards UG doesn't find the article biased towards one and the other at some point"
That's all hypothetical. We're talking about a specific article. Point out the bias there, don't try to think up situations that may or may not ever happen. Discuss what's happening now. Also, it's not enough to be "indifferent" to UG. Ignorance is its own bias. In order to be able to judge without bias you need to be both indifferent and knowledgable. Even then, all that is still subjective. The only objective measure is the one I mentioned before, because it has nothing to do with what I or anybody else believes. Neither I, nor anybody else can make "pro" and "con" advocates to simultaneously declare the article in its totality as biased. It will happen when the article is not close to any of the opposing positions, and it will be declared so by the people most suitable to do so: the people who care enough about the subject to have a "pro" or "con" opinion about it. That's what is actual, not theories about what may happen, or subjective concepts of balance and proportion. Don't forget that the issue is not about verifiable sources etc. This is not about the mechanics of the article.
What's more is there to discuss about the label in the post-calamity section? You don't seem to understand that on its face, it constitutes veiled advocacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You are the one who raised the hipothetical scenario by which the article could be unbiased. You are the one who is not dealing with the article now, when you give these abstract definitions of the circunstances in which an article can be declared unbiased. I don't understand how my reference to what I called "indifferent person" constitutes a contradiction with your issue of being "knowledgable". What "has got nothing to do with what I or anybody else believes" is what you get when you avoid original research, like I said. Not when you include original research from both sides, as you appeared to be saying.
I will discuss the label problem when you drop the teacher tone. Maziotis (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Right. So point out the original research in the article. And tell everybody the actual objective criteria of non-bias to be used. Also tell us why an indifferent person should automatically supposed to be knowledgeable. Where do you see the "hypothetical scenario"? This discussion page is full of people - pro and con - mouthing off. They will disagree with a non-biased article: it doesn't represent their opinion. As for the article itself, I have dealt with it extensively, as the edit history shows.
Discuss this: 1. Factually, there is no way of knowing that UG "always" said anything. 2. The comment is defensive on its face since it editorially qualifies/rebuts an opinion. 3. It is out of place since the particular paragraph is only a description of the range of 3rd party opinions. 4. It has already been stated elsewhere in the article (in the Philosophy section), and its repeated mention produces undue emphasis. All of these have been pointed out to you several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.200 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You seem to forget that this discussion started with your abstract definition of what constitues an unbiased article. This did not begin with me complaining about the article being biased. So, I don't understand why you keep insisting with me to point exactly on what is biased and needs to be changed. The "hypothetical scenario" is this abstract definition, where an article reaches the point "[w]hen the opposing pro and con biases equally think the article is biased in favor of the other". This is what I disgree with, and I am trying to give my perspective. That is all.
That paragraph is not defined as "crticism" section, and it needs the same balanced as in any other place. So, a "defensive on its face" expression is called for, as long as it does not constitue original research. U. G. never claimed to be enlightned, he spent his entire life "ranting" against that idea, so when an article refers such claim on others, I believe it is relevant to point out to what the author himself claims to be. Maziotis (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

@Maziotis

I strongly dislike your way of acting and your arguments, very unbuddhist.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.80.152 (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not a buddhist. But I do enjoy being on everyone's good side. You tell me what you didn't like about my acts and arguments, and I will take it into consideration. It's good to point other's people faults, but don't forget it goes both ways... Maziotis (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"6. Courage to Stand Alone:

[Italian Translation: by Pierluigi Piazza] IL CORAGGIO DI ESSERE SE STESSI

[German Translation: by Ulla Inayat-Khan] Der Mut, allein zu stehen

[Polish Translation: by Cezary W�zcik " ODWAGA BYCIA SAMEMU

Austerlitz -- 88.75.90.34 (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

UG's Son on UG's Family Connections...

Estranged? Are you kidding? You know nothing of UG's relationship with me. UG and I have been in close contact for much longer than you would know; my children have known him and of his affection from the time they were little, really little.Muppaluri (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Excessive quotes

This article has an excessive number of quotes. Are people assuming that his material is copyright free? even if it is, do the quotes need to stay? a test of this is whether another spiritual figure (christ, mohammad, buddha, gandhi, mlking, martin luther, the other krishnamurti) have a similar number of quotes, or more. i am not familiar with this man, but will probably enjoy and agree with his writings, but that aside, we really should limit quotes to significant ones, ideas he has some notability around. i wont just dive in and delete them, but i would like to see some discussion of this. and can we remember that this is NOT the place to discuss the man himself, or our relationships with him (spiritual or personal {is there a difference?}), but the article about him.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

i put the quotes in originally. this man was very difficult to define or describe. I feel the quotes- some of which are from his Swan Songh statement- would at least give a taster of his talks. This is also why they are arranged by subject. Further I have not seen his quotes arranged like that before, so they are encyclopedic in that sense. Theres no copy right on his words (read the artical!) and most of these quotes are from online sources anyway.
yes i see the quote where he claims no copyright. i missed that. however, i would still like to be sure that the books are not copyrighted, even if thats in contradiction to his statement. if the books say explicitly that the content which is his statements are not copyrighted, but just the questions put to him, then of course i have no problem. but still, we have a lot of quotes here, where it would be better to have an external link to quotes. too many quotes becomes POV in my opinion, as they implicitly state that the article agrees with them. at least i think so, and i think readers might get that impression.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
That issue has been dealt with on wikisource. His books do come with a disclaimer waving away all copyrights. That is why you can find them at wikisource. Maziotis (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
maybe the quotes from his Swan Song can be put back, and other quotes put in context —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balvinder1 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arguing about quotes? You people have seriously missed the point. - G Garrick. 12th Feb 2011

Luna Tarlow

didnt she meet with U.G. and subsequently become disillusioned by her son Andrew Cohen the spiritual teacher? unless this is one of many such written documentations on encounters with U.G. i think it would be appropriate to add here, as its a published account, and relates directly to his "teachings" and their effect on her and the process of spiritual development from having a leader to being more independent. has this been debated already? i think it can be added without POV, just sourced and noted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

J Krishnamurti

There are several instances in the article where uncited statements re: Jiddu Krishnamurti are made. Proof needed template Template:Fact is appropriate. Other statements are not easily verifiable and come from a single source, U.G. himself. In this case, nonspecific/unverifiable template is appropriate: Template:Unverifiable. This is done as an incentive to either provide proper, reliable sources, or to remove/modify the so-called information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

UG, a sage? Enlightened?

At the very outset, the article says: "U G Krishnamurti was a sage who talked about his enlightened openly." UG himself would have had deep reservations about such a claim. He debunked such notions as enlightenment and would have been the last person to have wanted someone to call him a sage. I suggest that this be edited properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmalik2010 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U._G._Krishnamurti/Archive_1&oldid=1030692777"